REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPEALLAE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.    1102         OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.16700 of 2008)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. … Appellant

Versus

Angad Kol & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 21.9.2007

passed  by  a  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh  at

Jabalpur in Misc. Application No.21/09/2007 whereby and whereunder the

appeals  preferred  by  the  claimants/respondents  from  an  award  dated

29.1.2007 passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal

(Fast  Track  Court),  Kanti  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ‘the  Tribunal’)  in

M.V.C.  No.350  of  2004,  was  allowed.   A  cross  objection  filed  by  the

appellant herein has also been dismissed by the said judgment.

3. Heirs and legal representatives of Genda Bai, who died in an accident

which  took  place  on  31.10.2004,  filed  a  claim  application  before  the

Tribunal, contending in that on the fateful day, when she had been standing

near  a  turning  known  as  ‘Hardi  turning’,  a  mini  door  Auto  bearing

registration No.MP-20G-9937 dashed against  her  as a result  whereof she

suffered  injuries.   She  was  taken  to  the  District  Hospital  where  she

succumbed thereto on the next day.   

The deceased was aged about 45 years at the time of her death.  She

allegedly  used  to  earn  about  Rs.5,000/-  per  month  by  preparing

‘Donnapattals’.

4. Indisputably,  the  vehicle  was  a  goods  carriage  vehicle  which  was

owned by Respondent No.7, Narendra, and was being driven by Respondent

No.6, Umesh.  Before the Tribunal, a contention was raised that the driver

of  the  vehicle  did  not  possess  a  valid  and  effective  driving  licence.

Overruling the said contention, an award of Rs.1,83,000/- was made.  

2

5. Claimants, as noticed hereinbefore, preferred an appeal thereagainst.

Appellant also filed a cross-objection.   

Inter alia, on the premise that the contribution to the family by the

deceased would have been about Rs.2,500/- per month and on deduction of

conventional 1/3rd amount from her income, the annual loss of dependency

was  calculated  at  Rs.20,000/-  per  annum.   The  High  Court  applied  the

multiplier of 15 and, thus, awarded a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards loss of

dependency.   A  sum of  Rs.40,000/-was  furthermore  awarded  under  the

heads of loss of estate, funeral expenses, loss of expectancy of life including

a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the husband for loss of consortium.  

6. Mr.  Santosh  Paul,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the

appellant, would submit that the driving licence having been granted to the

respondent  No.6,  Umesh,  in  the  year  2003  for  a  period  of  20  years,

evidently it was not meant for driving a goods carriage vehicle.   

7. Mr.  Raj Kumar Gupta,  learned counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the

respondent, however, would submit that as the appellant already deposited

50% of the awarded amount, this Court  may direct it  to pay the balance

awarded amount with a right to recover the same from the owner and/or the

driver of the vehicle.

3

8. Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988  (hereinafter  called  as  ‘the  Act’)  was

enacted  to  consolidate  and  amend  the  law  relating  to  motor  vehicles.

‘Driving  licence’  has  been defined  in  Section  2(10)  to  mean the licence

issued by a competent  authority under  Chapter  II  authorizing  the person

specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a

motor vehicle of any specified class or description.  “Goods carriage” has

been defined in  Section  2(14)  to  mean any motor vehicle  constructed or

adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so

constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods.  The said Act

also  defines  ‘heavy  goods  vehicle’,  ‘heavy  passenger  motor  vehicle’,

‘medium goods vehicle’ and ‘medium passenger motor vehicle’ as well as a

‘light motor vehicle’ in Section 2(21) of the Act to mean :

“ ‘light motor vehicle’ 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.”

9. Although the definition of the ‘light motor vehicle’ brings within its

umbrage both ‘transport  vehicle’ or ‘omnibus’, indisputably, as would be

noticed infra, a distinction between an effective licence granted for transport

vehicle and passenger motor vehicle exists.   

4

Section 3 provides for the necessity of driveling licence, stating :

“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 authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor car or moter 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) …”

Section 9 provides for grant of driving licence.  Section 10 prescribes

the form and contents of licences to drive which is to the following effect :

“10. Form and contents of licences to drive.— (1)  Every  learner's  licence  and  driving  licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall  be  in  such  form  and  shall  contain  such information as may be prescribed by the  Central Government.

(2)  A  learner's  licence  or,  as  the  case  may  be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:-

(a) to (c) …

(d) light motor vehicle;

(e) transport vehicle;

(i)  road Roller;

5

(j)   motor  vehicle  of  a  specified description.”

10. The  distinction  between  a  ‘light  motor  vehicle’  and  a  ‘transport

vehicle’ is,  therefore, evident.   A transport  vehicle may be a light  motor

vehicle but for the purpose of driving the same, a distinct licence is required

to  be  obtained.   The  distinction  between  a  ‘transport  vehicle’  and  a

‘passenger vehicle’ can also be noticed from Section 14 of the Act.  Sub-

section (2) of Section 14 provides for duration of a period of three years in

case of an effective licence to drive a ‘transport vehicle’ whereas in case of

any other licence, it may remain effective for a period of 20 years.   

11. The driver and the owner of the vehicle did not examine themselves.

The driving licence was not produced.  The application form praying for

grant of driving licence was also not produced.   

The insurance company examined Shri R.K. Hila, an officer of the

Regional Transport Authority.  The contents of his deposition, as has been

noticed by the learned Tribunal in paragraph 7 of the award, is as under :

“The  onus  of  issue  No.2  is  on  Opposite  Party No.3.  But they could not establish their allegation that  the  vehicle  was  driver  contrary  to  the conditions of the insurance contract.  The witness No.1 of the Opposite Party Sri R.K. Hela of the

6

Regional  Transport  Authority has  stated that  the Opposite  Party  No.1  had  licence  to  driver  Light Motor  Vehicle  for  the  period  30.07.2003  to 29.07.2023  and  the  vehicle  involved  is  a  Light Goods Vehicle.  It is contended that the holder of the licence had to obtain an endorsement to drive goods  vehicles  but  it  has  not  been  established whether the vehicle involved in the accident is a goods  vehicle  and  whether  the  holder  of  the licence  was  entitled  to  drive  a  goods  carriage vehicle.  It has also not been established that the vehicle  involved  was  a  goods  carriage  vehicle. The Opposite Party No.3 could not establish that the vehicle was driven contrary to the terms and conditions  of  the  insurance.   As  a  result  the Opposite Party No.3 has not been able to establish that  the  driver  of  the  vehicle  which  caused  the accident  did  not  have  an  effective  and  valid licence.  Hence issue No.2 is decided against the Respondent No.3.”

12. Indisputably,  the  Regional  Transport  Officer,  Jabalpur,  in  a  letter

addressed to Shri S.K. Yadav in response to his application dated 21.2.2005

furnished the particulars of driving licence No.MP70/0/6436/03 as under :

“As per this office record the particulars of driving licence No.MP70/0/6436/03 are as under :

1. Name of Licence holder :  Shri  Umesh Gupta

2. Son of : Shri M.L. Gupta    MP20/016436/03

3. Address : Karmata, Jabalpur

7

4. Date of issue : 30.7.2003

5. Date of expiry : 29.7.2023

6. Date of last renewal : 8.4.2013

7. Valid for : 8.4.2013

8. Class of vehicle : M/Cycle + LMV only

9. Paid Employee

Endorsement if any.”

13. The Central Government had framed Rules known as ‘Central Motor

Vehicle Rules’.  Form 4 prescribed therein provides for different columns

for grant of a licence of light motor vehicle, medium goods vehicle or heavy

goods vehicle.  Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form 4 for

a licence to drive a motor vehicle.  An amendment was carried out on or

about 28.3.2001 being JSR No.221(E) in terms whereof, inter alia, licence

which is to be granted in Form 6 requires a specific authorization to drive a

‘transport vehicle’.

14. The licence was granted to Respondent No.6, Umesh, in 2003, i.e.,

after  the  said  amendment  came  into  force.   The  accident,  as  noticed

hereinbefore, took place on 31.10.2004.

8

15. Licence having been granted for a period of 20 years, a presumption,

therefore, arises that it was meant for the purpose of a vehicle other than a

transport vehicle.

16. Had the driving licence had been granted for transport vehicle,  the

tenure thereof could not have exceeded to three years.

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.  Annappa Irappa Nesaria [(2008) 3

SCC 464], this Court noticed the aforementioned development in the matter

of  grant  of  licence  to  a  transport  vehicle  stating  that  the  same  became

effective from 28.3.2001 in the following terms :

“20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is  evident  that  “transport  vehicle” has  now been substituted  for  “medium  goods  vehicle”  and “heavy  goods  vehicle”.  The  light  motor  vehicle continued,  at  the  relevant  point  of  time to cover both “light passenger carriage vehicle” and “light goods carriage vehicle”. A driver who had a valid licence  to  drive  a  light  motor  vehicle,  therefore, was  authorised  to  drive a light  goods  vehicle  as well.

21. The  amendments  carried  out  in  the  Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law.”

9

17. The effect of the different terms of licences granted in terms of the

provisions of Section 2(14) and 2(47) has also been noticed by this Court in

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal [(2008) 1 SCC 696], stated :

“30. Now, it is the case of the Insurance Company that the vehicle of the complainant which met with an  accident  was  a  “transport  vehicle”.  It  was submitted  that  the  insured  vehicle  was  a  “goods carriage” and was thus a “transport vehicle”. The vehicle  was  driven  by  Ram  Narain,  who  was authorised to drive light motor vehicle and not a transport vehicle. Since the driver had no licence to drive transport vehicle in absence of necessary endorsement in his licence to that effect, he could not  have driven Tata 709 and when that  vehicle met  with  an  accident,  the  Insurance  Company could not be made liable to pay compensation.

XXX XXX XXX

37. The  argument  of  the  Insurance  Company  is that  at  the time of accident,  Ram Narain had no valid  and  effective  licence  to  drive  Tata  709. Indisputably, Ram Narain was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle. The learned counsel for the  Insurance  Company,  referring  to  various provisions of the Act submitted that if a person is having  licence  to  drive  light  motor  vehicle,  he cannot drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do (Section 3). Clauses (14), (21), (28) and (47) of Section 2 make  it  clear  that  if  a  vehicle  is  “light  motor vehicle”, but falls under the category of transport vehicle,  the  driving  licence  has  to  be  duly endorsed under Section 3 of the Act.  If  it  is not done, a person holding driving licence to ply light motor  vehicle  cannot  ply  transport  vehicle.  It  is not in dispute that in the instant case, Ram Narain

10

was  having  licence  to  drive  light  motor  vehicle. The  licence  was  not  endorsed  as  required  and hence,  he  could  not  have  driven  Tata  709  in absence  of  requisite  endorsement  and  the Insurance Company could not be held liable.

38. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. We also  find  that  the  District  Forum considered the question in its proper perspective and held that the vehicle driven by Ram Narain was covered by the category of transport vehicle under Clause (47) of  Section  2  of  the  Act.  Section  3,  therefore, required the driver to have an endorsement which would  entitle  him to  ply  such  vehicle.  It  is  not even  the  case of  the  complainant  that  there  was such endorsement and Ram Narain was allowed to ply transport vehicle. On the contrary, the case of the  complainant  was  that  it  was  Mohd.  Julfikar who was driving the vehicle. To us, therefore, the District  Forum  was  right  in  holding  that  Ram Narain  could  not  have  driven  the  vehicle  in question.”

The  Court  distinguished  its  earlier  judgment  in  Ashok  Gangadhar

Maratha v. Oriental Insurance [(1999) (6) SCC 620], stating :

“41. In our judgment,  Ashok Gangadhar did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and yet he can drive such vehicle. It was on the peculiar facts of the case, as the  Insurance  Company  neither  pleaded  nor proved that  the  vehicle  was transport  vehicle  by placing  on  record  the  permit  issued  by  the Transport  Authority that  the  Insurance  Company was held liable.”

11

However, in this case, the finding of fact arrived at that the vehicle in

question was not proved to be a goods vehicle is not correct.  The Regional

Transport Officer, in his deposition, stated that the vehicle in question was a

goods vehicle.

18. From the discussions made hereinbefore, it is, thus, evident that it is

proved  that  respondent  No.6  did  not  hold  a  valid  and  effective  driving

licence for driving a goods vehicle.  Breach of conditions of the insurance

is, therefore, apparent on the face of the records.   

19. By an order dated 10.7.2008, the insurance company was directed to

deposit 50% of the awarded amount.  In this view of the matter, we are of

the opinion that interest of justice would be subserved if we, in exercise of

our  jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution while directing the

insurance company to deposit the balance amount before the Tribunal with

liberty to the claimants to withdraw the same give right to the appellant to

recover the said    amount from the owner and the driver of  the vehicle

being Respondent Nos.6 and 7.

20. In view of the aforementioned findings, the appeal is allowed with no

order as to costs.

12

………………………….J. [S.B. Sinha]

..…………………………J.     [V.S. Sirpurkar]

New Delhi; February 18, 2009

13