http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  574 of 2008

PETITIONER: National Insurance Company Ltd.

RESPONDENT: Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/01/2008

BENCH: S.B. SINHA & H.S. BEDI

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T [Arising out of SLP(C) No. 21632/2003]      S.B. Sinha, J. 1.      Leave granted. 2.      Appellant \026 National Insurance Company is before us, aggrieved by  and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 14th July, 2003, passed by  a learned Single Judge of the Karnaraka High Court in M.F.A. No.  7788/2002 dismissing the appeal preferred against an award dated 17.9.2002  passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (\023Tribunal\024 for short) in  M.V.C No.124/2000.  3.      The fact of the matter relevant for the purpose of disposal of this  appeal is as under :      The vehicle involved in the accident was a Matador Van bearing  registration No. KA-23/2890. It had a \021Goods Carriage\022 permit granted in  terms of Form No.7 of the Motor Vehicles Act.  It was insured with the  appellant. The said vehicle met with an accident on 9.12.1999 causing death  of one Gangawwa wife of the respondent No.1 herein. A contention was  raised on behalf of the appellant that the driver of the said vehicle did not  possess an effective licence to drive a transport vehicle.  4.      An issue (being Issue No.3), inter alia, was framed in that behalf  before the Tribunal, which reads as under: \023Whether the R-3 proves that driver of offending  vehicle was not an authorised person to drive the  same?\024       5.      The learned Tribunal in support of its award on Issue No.3, held: \023DW-1 in this cross examination admitted that  offending vehicle is authorised to transport 3500  kgs. goods. Further, in this cross-examination  stated that LMV means transport vehicle which  unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kgs. Ex.D-2  at Column No.12 clearly shows that the unladen  weight of the offending vehicle is 3500 kgs.  Thereby it is very much clear that said unladen  weight of the offending vehicle is much less than  7500 kgs. as admitted by DW-1 in his cross- examination which is also the effect as defined in  the MV Act. So when the unladen weight of the  offending vehicle is less than 7500 kgs. the RW-1  driver who is having DL as per Ex.D-3 is certainly  authorised to drive the offending vehicle. The  decision relied upon by Adv. for petitioners at  serial No.2 ruling reported in 2000(5) KLJ 473  (DB) or own Hon’ble High Court had clearly held  that where offending vehicle is weighing 4960 kgs.  driven by a person having DL to drive the LMV,  there is breach of issuance policy, as statute  classifies vehicle weighing below 7500 kgs. as  LMVs and Insurer is liable to satisfy award in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

respect of accident that occurred when the vehicle  was being driven by driver holding such licence.  So in view of the decision of Division Bench of  our own Hon’ble High Court and also the decision  of Supreme Court referred at Sl. No.1 Adv. for  petitioners it is very much clear that RW1 is  having valid DL as per Exh.D3 and the offending  vehicle unladen weight is 3500 kgs. is certainly  was having effective and valid DL and so R3 has  failed to prove the issue No.3 and accordingly I  answer the same in the negative.\024          6.      The High Court on an appeal preferred by the appellant herein  opined : \023Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company,  questioning the liability, contended that the driver  did not possess a valid licence to drive LMV.  According to the respondents, the driver had  driving licence to drive LMV, a transport vehicle.  According to the appellant, the vehicle in question  involved in the accident is a transport vehicle. The  said contention cannot be accepted by this Court,  in view of the fact that claimants are third parties  even on the ground that there is violation of terms  and conditions of policy, the insurance company  cannot be permitted to contend that it has no  liability. Accordingly, I do not see any merit in this  appeal.\024       7.      Mr. Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  appellant would submit that the High Court committed a serious error in  passing the impugned judgment in so far as it failed to take into  consideration that a \021light motor vehicle\022 cannot be a \021transport vehicle\022  within the meaning of the provisions of the Act. It was submitted that for the  purpose of grant of licence for driving a vehicle, an application has to be  filed in Form No.4, whereafter only a licence is granted in Form No.6.   Learned counsel contended that the said forms have been prescribed in terms  of Rules 14 and 16 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, and on a  perusal thereof as also the aforementioned Forms, it would be clear that a  \021light motor vehicle\022 does not answer the description of a \021transport vehicle\022.    8.      Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the contention raised herein  by the appellant has neither been raised before the Tribunal nor before the  High Court.  In any event, it was urged, that keeping in view the definition of  the \023light motor vehicle\024 as contained in Section 2(21) of the Motor vehicles  Act, 1988 (\023Act\024 for short), a light goods carriage would come within the  purview thereof.                   A \021light goods carriage\022 having not been defined in the Act, the  definition of the \023light motor vehicle\024 clearly indicates that it takes within its  umbrage, both a transport vehicle and a non-transport vehicle.                   Strong reliance has been placed in this behalf by the learned counsel  in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha  vs.  Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., [1999  (6) SCC 620]. 9.      The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was enacted to consolidate  and amend the law relating to motor vehicles, is a complete code. 10.     Section 2 of the Act provides for interpretation of the terms  contained herein. It employs the words \023unless the context otherwise  requires\024. Section 2(16) of the Act defines \023heavy goods vehicle\024  to mean  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.  11.     Section 2(21) defines \023light motor vehicle\024 and Section 2(23)  defines \023medium goods vehicle\024 as under: \023Light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or  omnibus  the gross vehicle weight of either of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the  unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed  7500 kilograms.\024       \023Medium goods vehicle means any goods carriage  other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods  vehicle.\024            Section 3 of the Act is in the following terms: \0233. 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 motorcab 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.\024

12.     The Central Government has framed Rules known as The Central  Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.   13.     The word \023Form\024 has been defined in Rule 2(e) to mean a Form  appended to the rules.  \023I Apply for a licence to enable me to drive  vehicles of the following description:          (d) Light motor vehicle         (e) Medium goods vehicle         (g) Heavy goods vehicle      (j)        Motor vehicles of the following  description:....\024               After amendment the relevant portion of Form 4 reads as under:       \023I Apply for a licence to enable me to drive  vehicles of the following description:       (d) Light motor vehicle      (e) Transport vehicle (j)     Motor vehicles of the following  description:....\024       14.     Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form 4, for a  licence to drive a motor vehicle, categorizing the same in nine types of  vehicles.                  Clause (e) provides for \023Transport vehicle\024 which has been  substituted by G.S.R. 221(E) with effect from 28.3.2001. Before the  amendment in 2001, the entries \023medium good vehicle\024 and \023heavy goods  vehicle\024 existed which have been substituted by \023transport vehicle\024.  As  noticed hereinbefore, \023Light Motor Vehicles\024 also found place therein. 15.     \023Light Motor Vehicle\024 is defined in Section 2(21) and, therefore, in  view of the provision, as then existed, it included a light transport vehicle.           Form 6 provides for the manner in which the licence is to be granted, the  relevant portion whereof read as under:  \023Authorisation to drive transport vehicle

Number...................               Date........ Authorised to drive transport vehicle with effect  from....... Badge number .........                                                                                                          Signature......................                         ...............................                         Designation of the licensing                         authority  

Name and designation of their authority who conducted the

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

driving test.\024       16.     From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that  \021transport vehicle\022 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, \021light passenger carriage vehicle\022 and \021light  goods carriage vehicle\022.          A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle,  therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well.   17.     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.   18.     For the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in this appeal and it  is dismissed with costs which we quantify at Rs.25,000/-(Rupees Twenty  Five Thousand only).