http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: ASHOK GANGADHAR MARATHA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/09/1999

BENCH: D.P.Wadhwa, S.Saghir Ahmad

JUDGMENT:

D.P. Wadhwa, J.

     Appellant has been non-suited by the National Consumer Disputes  Redressal  Commission  (for short,  the  ’National Commission’)  on appeal by the insurer against the order  of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the  ’State Commission’).  Both the National Commission  and the  State  Commission  have   been  constituted  under  the Consumer  Protection Act, 1986.  By judgment dated  December 30,  1993 the State Commission had allowed the complaint  of the appellant and had directed the respondent-insurer to pay to  the  complainant-appellant a sum of  Rs.2,70,000/-  with interest  @ 18% per annum from the date of the accident till payment  for satisfying his claim under the policy issued by the  respondent.   The claim was made on account  of  damage caused  to the motor vehicle belonging to the appellant  and insured  with the respondent.  Appellant was the owner of  a Swaraj   Mazda   truck,  a   light  motor  vehicle   bearing registration No.KA 28 567.  The vehicle was insured with the respondent  insurance company in the sum of Rs.2,82,000/- as per  policy  bearing  No.   MV/3440/91  for  a  period  from February 17, 1991 to February 16, 1992.  There is no dispute that  the  vehicle  in  question is a  light  motor  vehicle weighing  less  than  6,000  kg.  The vehicle  met  with  an accident  on  November 26, 1991 and was completely  damaged. Appellant  lodged  his  claim  with the  insurer  under  the insurance  policy  covering the vehicle.  Since the  insurer refused to honour its commitment under the insurance policy, the  appellant  filed  complaint with the  State  Commission claiming  Rs.5,61,000/-.  State Commission allowed the claim of  the appellant to the extent of Rs.2,70,000/- and granted him  interest  @ 18% per annum with effect from the date  of accident,  i.e.,  November  26, 1991.   The  appellant  also awarded  cost  amounting  to Rs.2,500/-.   State  Commission negatived  the plea of the insurer that the vehicle was  not being  driven by person having an effective driving licence. Against  the judgment of the State Commission, insurer filed appeal  before the National Commission which was allowed  by the   impugned  judgment  dated   May  4,  1995.    National Commission  accepted the stand of the insurer as spelled out in  para  14 of the counter affidavit filed by  the  insurer before  the State Commission.  This para 14 we reproduce  as under :  "This respondent states that the said assessment of the  surveyor was subject to the condition that the  insured had  not  violated the terms and conditions of  the  policy. This respondent states that on verification of the documents

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

produced  by  the  insured  revealed  that  the  vehicle  in question  was  a light goods vehicle and hence  a  transport vehicle.   The driving particulars of the driver, Naga Saheb Jadhav  which were produced by the insured disclosed that he had held a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle only which  was  valid for the period 27.2.90 to  26.2.99.   This driving  licence,  thus revealed that Naga Saheb Jadhav  was not   authorised  to  drive  a  transport   vehicle.    This respondent  states that the insured had committed breach  of the  terms of the policy and violated the provisions of M.V. Act,  1988 in entrusting a transport vehicle to a person who had  not  held a valid driving licence to drive a  transport vehicle  and  as a consequence thereof, this respondent  was not  liable to indemnify their insured in respect of the own damage claim lodged vide his claim form dated 10.12.1991."

     Under  Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988  (for short,  the ’Act’), no person shall drive a Motor Vehicle in any  public  place  unless  he holds  an  effective  driving licence  issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle. Section  3  is  as  under  :   "3.   Necessity  for  driving licence.-(1)  No  person shall drive a motor vehicle in  any public  place  unless he holds an effective driving  licence issued  to him authorising him to drive the vehicle;  and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme  made under sub-section (2) of section 75 unless  his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.  (2) The conditions  subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to  a  person  receiving  instructions in  driving  a  motor vehicle  shall  be such as may be prescribed by the  Central Government."

     This  section  uses  two expressions,  namely,  "motor vehicle" and "effective driving licence".  "Effective" would mean  a valid licence both as regards the period and type of vehicle.    We  are  not   considering  here  otherwise  any incapacity   of  the  person   holding  a  driving  licence. "Driving  licence", "Motor vehicle" or "vehicle", "transport vehicle",  "light  motor vehicle", "goods carriage",  "heavy goods  vehicle" and "medium goods vehicle" have been defined in  Section  2  of  the Act as under  :   "driving  licence" (clause  10)  means  the  licence   issued  by  a  competent authority  under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein  to  drive,  otherwise than as a  learner,  a  motor vehicle  or  a  motor  vehicle of  any  specified  class  or description;   "motor  vehicle" or "vehicle"  [clause  (28)] means  any  mechanically propelled vehicle adapted  for  use upon  roads  whether the power of propulsion is  transmitted thereto  from an external or internal source and includes  a chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer; but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a vehicle  of a special type adapted for use only in a factory or  in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having  less than  four  wheels  fitted  with   engine  capacity  of  not exceeding   twenty-five  cubic    centimetres;    "transport vehicle"  [clause  (47)] means a public service  vehicle,  a goods  carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service  vehicle;  "light motor vehicle" [clause (21)] means a  transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight  of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen  weight  of  any  of which,  does  not  exceed  7500 kilograms;   "goods carriage" [clause (14)] means any  motor vehicle  constructed  or  adapted  for use  solely  for  the carriage  of goods, or any motor vehicle not so  constructed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

or  adapted  when  used for the carriage of  goods;   "heavy goods  vehicle"  [clause (16)] means any goods carriage  the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the  unladen  weight  of  either of  which,  exceeds  12,000 kilograms;   and "medium goods vehicle" [clause (23)]  means any  goods  carriage other than a light motor vehicle  or  a heavy  goods  vehicle.   Naga Saheb Jadhav, the  driver  was having  the driving licence to drive a light motor  vehicle. On  the  day of the accident, vehicle was not  carrying  any goods.   Contention of the insurer has been that the vehicle was  a goods carriage and thus a transport vehicle.  Rule 16 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 prescribes the form under  which a driving licence is to be issued.  It is  form No.6.   Jadhav was having a driving licence in form 6  which was  for  driving  a  light motor  vehicle.   There  was  no endorsement  on his driving licence authorising him to drive a  transport  vehicle.   For  a vehicle to  be  a  transport vehicle, it must be a goods carriage which in turn means any motor  vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods or when not so constructed or adapted used for  the  carriage  of goods.  We have  the  definitions  of "heavy  goods vehicle" and "medium goods vehicle".  There is no  definition  of  "light   goods  vehicle".   Instead  the definition  is  of "light motor vehicle".  If we  apply  the definition  of  a "light motor vehicle" as given  in  clause (21)  of Section 2 of the Act to mean a "transport  vehicle" which  in turn means a "goods carriage" then we have nowhere the definition of a "light motor vehicle" without it being a "goods  carriage".   Section  2 of the Act begins  with  the words  "unless in this Act the context otherwise  requires". We  have, therefore, to give a meaningful interpretation  to "light  motor vehicle" as given in clause (21).  Clause  (e) of  Rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989  defines "non-transport vehicle" to mean a motor vehicle which is not a  transport vehicle (clause (e) renumbered as clause (h) by 1993 Amendment to Rules).  This definition would, therefore, take  out of the definition of ’transport vehicle" as  given in  clause  (21)  light motor vehicles which are  not  goods carriage.   Chapter  V  of the Act contains  provisions  for Control  of Transport Vehicles.  Under Section 66 of the Act falling under this chapter no owner of a motor vehicle shall use  or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in  any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying  any  passenger or goods except in accordance  with the conditions of permit granted by the prescribed authority authorising  the  use  of the vehicle in that place  in  the manner  in which the vehicle is being used.  Sub-section (1) of Section 66 we quote :  66.  Necessity for permits.-(1) No owner  of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle  as a transport vehicle in any public place  whether or  not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers  or goods  save  in accordance with the conditions of  a  permit granted  or  countersigned by a Regional or State  Transport Authority  or  any prescribed authority authorising him  the use  of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle  is  being  used :  Provided that a  stage  carriage permit  shall,  subject  to  any   conditions  that  may  be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage;  Provided further that a stage carriage permit  may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in  the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a  goods carriage  either when carrying passengers or not;   Provided also  that  a  goods carriage permit shall, subject  to  any conditions  that  may be specified in the permit,  authorise the  holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

or  in  connection  with a trade or business carried  on  by him."

     Section 77 deals with an application for permit to use a  motor  vehicle  for the carriage of  goods.   Section  78 prescribes  relevant  considerations for processing such  an application.   Section  79  provides   for  grant  of  goods carriage  permit.   There  is no evidence to record  and  no claim  has either been made by the insurer that the  vehicle in  question was having a permit for goods carriage.  If  we accept the contention of the insurer, there can never be any light  motor  vehicle  and there can never  be  any  driving licence  for  driving a light motor vehicle.  We cannot  put such  a construction on clause (21) of Section 2 of the  Act so  as  to  exclude  a  light motor  vehicle  from  the  Act altogether.  Light motor vehicle is a motor vehicle to drive for  which Jadhav possessed effective driving licence.   His driving  licence  was  valid on the date  of  accident.   In allowing  the  claim of the appellant the  State  Commission held  that "the driver who drove the vehicle at the time  of accident,  had as a matter of fact, a valid driving  licence for  driving a light motor vehicle and there is no  material on  record to show that he was disqualified from holding  or obtaining  such a licence at the time of accident.  In  view of  these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied  that  the  policy does not insist on  the  driver having  a licence to drive, to obtain a specific endorsement to drive a transport vehicle." We, however, do not subscribe to  such  a  view.  Definition of "light motor  vehicle"  as given  in clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act can apply only to  a "light goods vehicle" or a "light transport  vehicle". A  "light motor vehicle" otherwise has to be covered by  the definition  of  "motor  vehicle" or "vehicle"  as  given  in clause  (28) of Section 2 of the Act.  A light motor vehicle cannot  always  mean  a light goods carriage.   Light  motor vehicle can be non-transport vehicle as well.  To reiterate, since  a  vehicle cannot be used as transport vehicle  on  a public  road unless there is a permit issued by the Regional Transport  Authority  for  that purpose, and  since  in  the instant  case there is neither a pleading to that effect  by any  party nor is there any permit on record, the vehicle in question would remain a light motor vehicle.  The respondent also  does  not  say  that any permit  was  granted  to  the appellant  for  plying  the vehicle as a  transport  vehicle under  Section  66  of the Act.  Moreover, on  the  date  of accident,  the  vehicle  was  not carrying  any  goods,  and thought it could be said to have been designed to be used as a  transport vehicle or goods-carrier, it cannot be so  held on account of the statutory prohibition contained in Section 66 of the Act.  It was pointed out by the appellant that the legal  representative  of  Jadhav, the driver, had  filed  a petition  for  compensation  under  the  Act.   Insurer  had resisted  the claim taking the stand that the driver of  the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle.  The plea of the insurer was rejected by the Claims Tribunal  and  petition  for compensation  was  allowed  and compensation paid to the legal representative of the driver. No appeal was preferred by the insurer in that case.  In the present  case,  the insurer alleged that the  appellant  had committed  breach  of the terms of the insurance policy  and had  violated  the  provisions of the Act  by  entrusting  a "transport  vehicle"  to a person who did not hold  a  valid licence  and the insurer was, thus, not liable to  indemnify appellant.   Under  the policy firstly light  motor  vehicle meant  the  gross  weight  of which  did  not  exceed  6,000

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

kilograms  and  secondly  against the  column  "driver"  the policy  stated:   "Drivers  clause:- Persons or  classes  of persons  entitled  to  drive:-   any  person  including  the insured.    Provided  that  a   person  driving  holding  an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not  disqualified from holding or obtaining such a  licence. Provided   also  that  if  a  person  holding  an  effective learner’s  licence may also drive the vehicle when not  used for  the transport of goods at the time of the accident  and that  such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3  of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989."

     Now  the  vehicle  in the present case  weighed  5,920 kilograms  and the driver had the driving licence to drive a light  motor  vehicle.   It  is  not  that,  therefore,  the insurance  policy covered a transport vehicle which meant  a goods  carriage.   The  whole case of the insurer  has  been built  on  a  wrong premise.  It is itself the case  of  the insurer that in the case of a light motor vehicle which is a non-transport vehicle, there was no statutory requirement to have  specific  authorisation on the licence of  the  driver under Form 6 under the Rules.  It has, therefore, to be held that  Jadhav was holding effective valid licence on the date of   accident   to  drive   light  motor   vehicle   bearing Registration  No.   KA-28-567.  Accordingly, the  appeal  is allowed.   Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission  is  set  aside and that of  the  State  Consumer Disputes  Redressal Commission restored though on  different ground.  Appellant would be entitled to costs.