dated this the 05 th day of january 2015...

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

BENCH, DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 05TH

DAY OF JANUARY 2015

BEFORE:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.21080 OF 2009

CONNECTED WITH









IN M.F.A.No.21080 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

National Insurance Company Limited,

Divisional Office,

Sujata Complex,

Near Bus Stand, P.B.Road,

Hubli. …APPELLANT

(By Shri. S.K.Kayakamath, Advocate)

R

2

AND:

1. Sri. Gangadhar,

Son of Basavanneppa Akki,

Age: 22 years,

Occupation: Driver now Nil,

Resident of Post: Umachagi,

Taluk: Hubli,

District: Dharwad.

2. Shri. Bheemappa,

Son of Ramappa Agasimani,

Occupation: owner of Tata Mini

Goods Truck bearing No.

KA-29.3996,

Resident of Muttanal,

District: Belgaum.

…RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. Dinesh M Kulakarni, Advocate for Respondent no.1

Service of notice on Respondent no.2 is held sufficient vide order

dated 17.10.2011)

This Miscellaneous First Appeal filed under Section 30(1)

of Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, against the judgment and

order dated 27.11.2008 passed in WCA/NF-12/2008 on the file of

the Labour Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s

Compensation, sub-division-II, Hubli, awarding compensation of

Rs.1,85,951/- along with interest at the rate of 12% P.A.

IN M.F.A.No.22392 OF 2009

BETWEEN:

3

The Divisional Manager,

ICICI Lombard General Insurance

Company Limited, Bellary,

Represented by the Manager (Legal),

ICICI Lombard GIC Limited,

Bellad Building, Gokul Road,

Hubli. …APPELLANT

(By Shri. S.K. Kayakamath, Advocate)

AND:

1. Moogappa,

Son of Late Thirukappa,

48 years, Agriculturist,

2. B. Channamma,

Wife of B. Moogappa,

40 years,

Household,

3. Nagarathnamma,

Wife of Palappa,

Daughter of Mugappa,

30 years,

4. B. Krishnamurthy,

Son of B. Mugappa,


5. B. Basavaraja,

Son of B. Mugappa,


4

Respondents No.1 to 5 are

Resident of Rampura,

Kudligi Taluk,

Bellary District.

6. G. Raghavendra,

Son of G. Thimmappa,

25 years, Driver of TATA ACE

Goods vehicle,

Resident of Echalabommanahalli,

Kudligi Taluk,

Bellary District.

7. G. Venkatesha,

Son of G. Monnurappa,

45 years, owner of TATA ACE

Goods vehicle,

Resident of Echalabommanahalli,

Now resident of Old-bus stand,

Kudligi. …RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. V. Shivaraj Hiremath, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1

to 5

Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 served)


of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the judgment and award

dated 16.4.2009 passed in MVC No.75/2008 on the file of the VI-

MACT, Kudligi, awarding the compensation of Rs.3,81,000/- with

interest at the rate of 8% P.A., from the date of petition till the

date of deposit.

5

IN M.F.A.No.22002 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

The Manager,

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance

Company Limited, near Durgamma Temple,

Opposite Oriental Insurance Office,

Bellary, represented herein by

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company

Limited, 4th Floor, V.A.Kalburgi Mansion,

Opposite Municipal Corporation,

Lamington Road, Hubli,

Represented by its

Authorized Signatory. …APPELLANT

(By Shri. Ravindra R Mane, Advocate)

AND:

1. Ambresh,

Son of Eranna,

Age: 20 years,

Occupation: Supervisor,

Resident of VESCO Farm House,

Krishnanagar,

Taluk Sandur,

District: Bellary.

2. Shivu @ Shivanagouda,

Son of Chinnapuragouda,

Age: 32 years,

Occupation: Driver of Trax

Bearing No.KA-35-7984,

Resident of Kalingeri Village,

6

Taluk Sandur,

District : Bellary.

3. Basavaraja Ningaraj,

Son of Channabasappa,

Age: 32 years,

Occupation: Owner of Trax,

Bearing No.KA-35-7984,

Resident of Kalingeri Village,

Taluk Sandur,

District: Bellary. …RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. S.M.Kalwad, Advocate for Caveator/Respondent No.1

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 served)



dated 16.1.2010 passed in MVC No.64/2009 on the file of the

Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) –cum-Member, MACT-VI, Kudligi,

awarding the compensation of Rs.1,68,800/- with interest at the

rate of 8% P.A., from the date of petition till its deposit.

IN M.F.A.No.23825 OF 2009

BETWEEN:



Divisional Office, Udupi, represented by

Its Divisional Manager,

The National Insurance Company

Limited, Shanbag Complex,

Opposite to Glass House,

Hubli. …APPELLANT


7

AND:

1. Smt. Lata Manjunath Shet,

Aged about 40 years,

Household,

2. Sangeeta,

Daughter of Manjunath Shet,

Aged 20 years,

Household,

3. Suneeta,

Daughter of Manjunath Shet,

Aged 19 years,

Student,

4. Vinayak,

Son of Manjunath Shet,

Aged 18 years,

Student,

5. Dhanaraj,

Son of Manjuanth Shet,

Aged 16 years,

Student,

All are resident of Abhitota,

Kelaginoor,

Honnavar Taluka.

[respondent no.5 being minor

Is represented by his next

Friend respondent no.1]

6. Dattatray Narayan Naik,

8

Registered owner of the

Truck bearing Registration No.

KA 31/A-2102,

resident of Santeguli,

Kumta Taluka. …RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. Ganapati M Bhat, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5

Respondent No.6 served)




Additional MACT., Honavar, awarding the compensation of

Rs.5,89,000/- with interest at 6% P.A., from the date of the

petition till realisation.

IN M.F.A.No.23824 OF 2009

BETWEEN:



Divisional Office, Udupi,

Represented by its Divisional Manager,

The National Insurance Company Limited,

Shanbag Complex, opposite to

Glass House, Hubli. …APPELLANT


AND:

1. Dhanaraj,

Son of Manjunath Shet,

Aged 17 years, Student,

9

Resident of Abhitota, Kelaginoor,

Honavar, being minor is

Represented by his next friend-mother

Smt. Lata Manjunath Shet,

Aged about 40 years,

Household, resident of Abhitota,

Kelaginoor, Honavar Taluk.

2. Dattatray Narayan Naik,

Registered owner of the Truck

Bearing Registration No.KA 31/A-2102,

Resident of Santeguli,

Kumta Taluk. …RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. Ganapati M Bhat, Advocate for Respondent No.1





Additional MACT., Honavar, awarding the compensation of

Rs.15,000/- with interest at 6% P.A., from the date of the petition

till realisation.

IN M.F.A.No.20299 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

The Authorized Signatory,

ICICI Lombard General Insurance

Company Limited, K.P. Coffee day,

Opposite Dr. Rajkumar Road,

Rajajinagar, Bangalore,

Represented by the Divisional Manager,

The ICICI Lombard General Insurance

10

Company Limited, Bellad and

Company Limited, 2nd

Floor,

Gokul Road, Hubli. …APPELLANT


AND:

1. Chandragouda,

Son of Ninganagouda Gurematti,

Resident of Khurdaveerapur,

Taluk: Byadagi,

District: Haveri.

2. Shankrappa,

Son of Puttappa Katenahalli,

Resident of Angargatti,

Taluk: Byadagi,

District: Haveri. …RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. Laxman T Mantagani, Advocate for Respondent No.1

Respondent no.2 served)


of WC Act, 1923, against the judgment and award dated

19.08.2009 passed in WCA/NF-210/2007 on the file of the Labour

Officer and Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Haveri

District, Haveri, awarding compensation of Rs.1,42,330/- along

with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of petition till

deposit.

11

IN M.F.A.No.20907 OF 2010

BETWEEN:

The Manager,

ICICI Lombard,

General Insurance Company Limited,

Branch Hospet, District: Bellary,

Through the Manager (Legal),

ICICI Lombard GIC Limited,

Bellad Building,

Gokul Road, Hubli. … APPELLANT


AND:

1. Manjunath,

M/o Gangamma,

Age: 27 years,

Occupation: Agriculture,

Resident of Hosalli,

Taluk: Gangavati,

District : Koppal.

2. Sharanappa,

Son of Fakkirappa,

Major, occupation: Driver of

TATA ACE Vehicle bearing

Registration No.KA37/6402

Resident of Ward No.4,

Block No.3,

Koppal.

3. Smt. Mailavva,

12

Wife of Hanumantappa,

Major, occupation: Owner of

TATA ACE Vehicle bearing

Registration No.KA 37/6402,

Resident of Basaveshwar Nagar,

Koppal. …RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. M.M. Hiremath, Advocate for Respondent No.1

Shri. Rajashekhar R Gunjalli, Advocate for Respondent No.3

Vide order dated 21.11.2014 notice to Respondent No.2 is

dispensed with)

*****




Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) and Member, MACT, Gangavathi, awarding

the compensation of Rs.5,46,463/- with interest at the rate of 6%

P.A. from the date of petition till realisation.

IN M.F.A.No.23011 OF 2009

BETWEEN:


ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance,

Chennai through the Manager,

ICICI Lombard, General Insurance

Company Limited, Bellad Building,

Gokul Road,

Hubli. …APPELLANT


13

AND:

1. C.S.Basha,

Son of C. Masthan Sab,

Age: 58 years,

Occupation: Milk Vendor,

Resident of Tinker Street,

76/21, Cowl Bazaar,

Bellary.

2. A. Shivaprasad,

Son of A. Rajashekar,

Major, owner of the Jeep

Bearing Registration No.KA 35/7210,

Resident of Ramasagar,

Hospet,

Bellary District. …RESPONDENTS

(Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 served)




Member, MACT No.I, Bellary, awarding the compensation of

Rs.1,17,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% P.A., from the date of

petition till realisation.

IN M.F.A.No.23012 OF 2009

BETWEEN:


ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance,

Chennai, through the Manager,

ICICI Lombard, General Insurance

14

Company Limited, Bellad Building,

Gokul Road,

Hubli. …APPELLANT


AND:

1. S. Imtiyaz,

Son of C.S.Basha,

Age: 29 years,

Occupation: Milk Vendor,

Resident of Tinker Street,

In front of Councilor Gaffor Sab House,

Cowl Bazaar,

Bellary.

2. A. Shivaprasad,

Son of A. Rajashekar,

Major, owner of the Jeep

Bearing Registration No.KA 35/7210,

Resident of Ramasagar,

Hospet,

Bellary District. …RESPONDENTS

(By Shri. Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, Advocate for Respondent

No.2





Member, MACT-I, Bellary, awarding the compensation of

Rs.1,48,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% P.A., from the

date of petition till realisation.

15

These Miscellaneous First Appeals having been heard and

reserved on 19.12.2014 at Dharwad Bench, Dharwad and coming

on for pronouncement of Judgment at the Principal Bench,

Bengaluru, this day, the Court delivered the following:-

J U D G M E N T

These appeals are heard and decided by this common

judgment having regard to common questions, albeit with some

variation, that arise for consideration.

The questions are :

a. Whether a driver possessing a licence to drive a light

motor vehicle (non-transport), having caused an accident while

driving a light goods vehicle (or a medium, or a heavy goods

vehicle, or a passenger carrying commercial vehicle) would yet

attract the liability of the Insurer to meet a claim for compensation

by a victim or his representatives ?

b. Whether a driver possessing a licence to drive a transport

vehicle, but which had expired on the date of accident, but had

been subsequently renewed, would attract the insurer’s liability ?

c. Whether the above questions are any longer res integra ?

16

2. After having heard the learned counsel Shriyuths

Kayakamath and Ravindra R Mane, appearing for the respective

appellants and Shriyuths Dinesh M Kulakarni, V.Shivaraj

Hiremath, S.M.Kalwad, Ganapati M Bhat, Laxman T Mantagani,

M.M. Hiremath, Shri. Rajashekhar R Gunjalli, and

Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, appearing for the respective

respondents, it is convenient to take stock of the legal provisions

and the case law in the first instance and to address the last of the

above points for consideration, in answering the first two.

3. A “driving licence” is defined under Section 2(10) of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘MV

Act’, for brevity) as meaning a licence issued by the competent

authority prescribed, authorizing a person to drive a motor vehicle

of a specified class or description.

4. Section 3 of the MV Act prohibits a person from driving

a “transport vehicle”, unless his driving licence specifically

entitles him so to do.

17

5. A “goods carriage” is defined as any motor vehicle

constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or

a vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage

of goods.

6. A “light motor vehicle” is defined under Section 2(21)

to mean a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross weight of either

of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms; or a motorcar, or

tractor or a road roller, the unladen weight of which does not

exceed 7500 kilograms.

7. A “transport vehicle” is defined under Section 2(47) of

the MV Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an

educational institution bus or a private service vehicle.

8. In terms of Sub-section (4) of Section 41 of the MV Act,

that in addition to the particulars to be included in the Certificate

of Registration of a vehicle, it shall also specify the type of the

motor vehicle, having regard to the design, construction and use of

the motor vehicle as notified by the Central Government in the

18

Official Gazette. As per S.O. 1248(E) dated 5.11.2004, published

in the Gazette of India, Extra-ordinary, Part II, Sec.3(ii) dated

5.11.2004, the Central Government has specified the types of

motor vehicles as mentioned in columns 1 and 2 of the Table

below for the purposes of Section 41(4) of the MV Act.

TABLE

Transport Vehicle Non-Transport Vehicle

(i) Motor Cycle with side car for

carrying goods.

(ii) Motor cycle with trailer to carry

goods.

(iii) Motor cycle used for hire to carry

one passenger on pillion and

motorized cycle-rickshaw for goods

or passengers on hire.

(iv) Luxury Cab.

(v) Three wheeled vehicles for

transport of passengers/goods.

(vi) Goods carrier trucks or tankers

or mail carriers (N1-N3 category).

(vii) Power tiller and Tractors using

public roads.

(i) Motor cycle with or without side

car for personal use.

(ii) Mopeds and motorized cycles

(Engine capacity exceeding 25 cc).

(iii) Invalid carriage.

(iv) Three-wheeled vehicles for

personal use.

(v) Motor car.

(vi) Fork lift.

(vii) Vehicles or trailers fitted with

equipments like rig, generator,

compressor.

(viii) Crane mounted vehicle.

19

(viii) Mobile clinic or X-Ray van or

library vans.

(ix) Mobile Workshops.

(x) Mobile canteens.

(xi) Private Service Vehicle.

(xii) Public Service Vehicle such as

maxi cab, motor cab, stage carriage

and contract carriage including tourist

vehicles.

(xiii) Educational Institution buses.

(xiv) Ambulances.

(xv) Animal Ambulances.

(xvi) Camper vans or trailers.

(xvii) Cash vans.

(xviii) Fire tenders, snorked ladders,

auxiliary trailers and fire fighting

vehicles.

(xix) Articulated vehicles.

(xx) Hearses.

(xxi) Omnibus+

(ix) Agriculture Tractor and Power

Tiller.

(x) Private service vehicle, registered

in the name of an individual and if

declared to be used by him solely for

personal.

(xi) Camper Van or Trailer for

private use.

(xii) Tow Trucks, Breakdown Van

and Recovery Vehicles.

(xiii) Tower Wagons and tree

trimming vehicles owned by Central,

State and local authorities.

(xiv) Construction Equipment

Vehicles as defined in rule 2(ca).*

20

9. It is also significant to notice that under Section 14 of

the MV Act, the currency of licences to drive motor vehicles

varies :

a. A “learner’s licence” is effective for a period of 6

months.

b. A licence to drive a “transport vehicle” is issued or

renewed, for a period of 3 years. (It could be 1 year if the vehicle

is used to carry goods of a dangerous or hazardous nature )

c. Any other licence, other than the above, would be

effective for a period of twenty years in respect of a person aged

below 50, until he attains the age of 50.

d. If a person is aged 50 on the date the licence is issued or

renewed, it would be effective for a period of 5 years.

Every driving licence issued under b, c and d, above, would

notwithstanding its expiry, continue to be effective for a period of

30 days.

21

10. One other development that is relevant is the

amendment of Sub-section (2) of Section 10 by the Motor

Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 in the said section, the

following kinds of vehicles were specified:

“……………

(e) medium goods vehicle,

(f) medium passenger motor vehicle,

(g) heavy goods vehicle and

(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle”

- By the above amendment the above clauses, (e) to (h), were

substituted by a single clause (e) thus:

“(e) transport vehicle”

Incidentally, Sub-section (2) of Section 10 specifies “ light

motor vehicle” under clause (d), thereof. This clause has

remained in place before and after the amendment.

11. Rule 16 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989

(Hereinafter referred to as the ‘CMV Rules’, for brevity)

prescribes the Form, in which a driving licence is issued. It

provides that the holder of a licence can drive any vehicle of the

22

description mentioned therein. It is significant that a “transport

vehicle”, as a particular class of vehicle, is included in Form 4,

under the CMV Rules, which has been substituted by GSR 221 E

dated 28.3.2001, with effect from 28.3.2001.

12. We may take a overview of the several decided cases

involving the controversy of the vehicle involved in an accident

being driven by a driver holding a licence to drive a “light motor

vehicle” and the insurer seeking to claim that the insurer’s liability

was not attracted as the vehicle in question was a “transport

vehicle”, and that the driver did not hold an “effective driving

licence”.

a. Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance

Co.Ltd., (1999) 6 SCC 620

The appellant was the owner of a truck weighing less than

the maximum limit prescribed in Section 2(21) of the Motor

Vehicles Act. The said truck was, therefore, a light motor vehicle.

It was registered with the respondent insurer for a certain amount

23

and for a certain period. Within the period of insurance, the truck

met with an accident and got completely damaged. The

appellant’s claim against the respondent was rejected by the

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The

National Commission accepted the respondent’s contention that

the truck was a goods carriage or a transport carriage and that the

driver of the truck who was holding a driving licence in Form 6 to

drive light motor vehicles only was not authorised to drive a

transport vehicle. That, therefore, the insured having committed

breach of the terms of insurance policy and the provisions of the

Act, the respondent insurer was not liable to indemnify the

insured. Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court held that the

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

24

cannot always mean a light goods carriage. Light motor vehicle

can be a non-transport vehicle as well.

It was reiterated that since a vehicle cannot be used as a

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 was no pleading to that effect by any party

nor was there any permit on record, it was held that the vehicle in

question would remain a light motor vehicle.

b. National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3

SCC 297, a three judge bench, has while considering the

contention of the insurer that no liability is covered if the driver is

found driving of a vehicle without a licence or a fake licence, with

reference to sub-section (4) of Section 149 of the MV Act, it was

held thus :

“ (The) Proviso appended to sub-section (4) of

Section 149 is referable only to sub-section (2) of

Section 149 of the Act. It is an independent provision

and must be read in the context of Section 96(4) of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Furthermore, it is one thing

25

to say that the insurer will be entitled to avoid its

liability owing to breach of terms of a contract of

insurance but it is another thing to say that the vehicle

is not insured at all. If the submission of the learned

counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the same would

render the proviso to sub-section (4) as well as sub-

section (5) of Section 149 of the Act otiose, nor can

any effective meaning be attributed to the liability

clause of the insurance company contained in sub-

section (1) of Section 149.

xxx

Sub-section (5) of Section 149 which imposes a

liability on the insurer must also be given its full effect.

The insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the

decree and, therefore, its liability may be zero but it

does not mean that it did not have initial liability at

all. Thus, if the insurance company is made liable to

pay any amount, it can recover the entire amount paid

to the third party on behalf of the assured. If this

interpretation is not given to the beneficent provisions

of the Act having regard to its purport and object, we

fail to see a situation where beneficent provisions can

be given effect to. Sub-section (7) of Section 149 of the

Act, to which pointed attention of the Court has been

drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which

26

is in negative language may now be noticed. The said

provision must be read with sub-section (1) thereof.

xxx

When, admittedly no licence was obtained by a

driver:

We have analysed the relevant provisions of the

said Act in terms whereof a motor vehicle must be

driven by a person having a driving licence. The

owner of a motor vehicle in terms of Section 5 of the

Act has a responsibility to see that no vehicle is driven

except by a person who does not satisfy the provisions

of Section 3 or 4 of the Act. In a case, therefore, where

the driver of the vehicle admittedly did not hold any

licence and the same was allowed consciously to be

driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person, the

insurer is entitled to succeed in its defence and avoid

liability. The matter, however, may be different where

a disputed question of fact arises as to whether the

driver had a valid licence or where the owner of the

vehicle committed a breach of the terms of the contract

of insurance as also the provisions of the Act by

consciously allowing any person to drive a vehicle

who did not have a valid driving licence. In a given

case, the driver of the vehicle may not have any hand

at all, e.g. a case where an accident takes place owing

27

to a mechanical fault or vis-major. [See Jitendra

Kumar (supra)].

In V. Mepherson vs. Shiv Charan Singh [1998

ACJ 601 (Del.)] the owner of the vehicle was held not

to be guilty of violating the condition of policy by

willfully permitting his son to drive the car who had no

driving licence at the time of accident. In that case, it

was held that the owner and insurer both were jointly

and severally liable.

In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Jagtar

Singh and Others [1998 ACJ 1074], Hon'ble M.

Srinivasan, CJ, as His Lordship then was, dealing with

the case where a duly licensed driver was driving a

vehicle but there was a dispute as to who was driving

the vehicle. In that case the court referred to the

judgment in Kashiram Yadav vs. Oriental Fire &

General Insurance Co. Ltd., [1989 ACJ 1078 (SC)]

and expressed its agreement with the views taken

therein.

In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Ishroo Devi

and Others [1999 ACJ 615] where there was no

evidence that the society which employed the driver

was having knowledge that the driver was not holding

a valid licence, it was held the insurance company is

28

liable. The court relied upon the decisions of this

Court in Kashiram Yadav's case (supra), Skandia's

case (supra) and Sohan Lal Passi's case (supra).

When the person has been granted licence for one

type of vehicle but at the relevant time he was driving

another type of vehicle

Section 10 of the Act provides for forms and

contents of licences to drive. The licence has to be

granted in the prescribed form. Thus, a licence to drive

a light motor vehicle would entitle the holder there to

drive the vehicle falling within that class or

description.

Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a

driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type

of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the

Act enables Central Government to prescribe forms of

driving licences for various categories of vehicles

mentioned in sub-section (2) of said section. The

various types of vehicles described for which a driver

may obtain a licence for one or more of them are (a)

Motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c)

invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport

vehicle, (f) road roller and (g) motor vehicle of other

specified description. The definition clause in Section

29

2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles

which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub-

section (2) of Section 10. They are `goods carriage',

`heavy-goods vehicle', `heavy passenger motor-

vehicle', ìnvalid carriage', `light motor-vehicle',

`maxi-cab',`medium goods vehicle', `medium

passenger motor-vehicle', `motor-cab', `motorcycle',

òmnibus', `private service vehicle', `semi-trailer',

`tourist vehicle', `tractor', `trailer', and `transport

vehicle'. In claims for compensation for accidents,

various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions

of driving licences arise for consideration before the

Tribunal. A person possessing a driving licence for

`motorcycle without gear', [sic may be driving a

vehicle] for which he has no licence. Cases may also

arise where a holder of driving licence for `light motor

vehicle' is found to be driving a `maxi-cab', `motor-

cab' or òmnibus' for which he has no licence. In each

case on evidence led before the tribunal, a decision

has to be taken whether the fact of the driver

possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found

driving another type of vehicle, was the main or

contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found

that accident was caused solely because of some other

unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical

failures and similar other causes having no nexus with

30

driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the

insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely

for technical breach of conditions concerning driving

licence.

We have construed and determined the scope of

sub-clause (ii) of sub- section(2) of section 149 of the

Act. Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as

want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about

age of the driver and the like not found to have been

the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as

minor breaches of inconsequential deviation in the

matter of use of vehicles. Such minor and

inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing

conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to

deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third

parties.

On all pleas of breach of licensing conditions

taken by the insurer, it would be open to the tribunal to

adjudicate the claim and decide inter se liability of

insurer and insured; although where such adjudication

is likely to entail undue delay in decision of the claim

of the victim, the tribunal in its discretion may relegate

the insurer to seek its remedy of reimbursement from

the insured in the civil court.

31

Where the driver’s licence is found to be fake:

It may be true as has been contended on behalf

of the petitioner that a fake or forged licence is as

good as no licence but the question herein, as noticed

hereinbefore, is whether the insurer must prove that

the owner was guilty of the wilful breach of the

conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of

insurance. In Lehru's case (supra), the matter has been

considered at some details. We are in general

agreement with the approach of the Bench but we

intend to point out that the observations made therein

must be understood to have been made in the light of

the requirements of law in terms whereof the insurer is

to establish wilful breach on the part of the insured

and not for the purpose of its disentitlement from

raising any defence or the owners be absolved from

any liability whatsoever. We would be dealing in some

details with this aspect of the matter a little later.

Learner’s Licence:

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for grant of

learner's licence. [See Section 4(3), Section 7(2),

Section 10(3) and Section 14]. A learner's licence is,

thus, also a licence within the meaning of the

provisions of the said Act. It cannot, therefore, be said

32

that a vehicle when being driven by a learner subject

to the conditions mentioned in the licence, he would

not be a person who is not duly licensed resulting in

conferring a right on the insurer to avoid the claim of

the third party. It cannot be said that a person holding

a learner's licence is not entitled to drive the vehicle.

Even if there exists a condition in the contract of

insurance that the vehicle cannot be driven by a

person holding a learner's licence, the same would run

counter to the provisions of Section 149(2) of the said

Act.”

c. New India Assurance v. Prabhulal, (2008) 1 SCC 696

While dealing with a case of a driver holding a licence to

drive a light motor vehicle and was found driving a heavy goods

vehicle, the apex court has held thus :

“28. The Central Government has framed rules

known as the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989

(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

29. Rule 16 of the Rules prescribes the form in

which driving licence is issued. The form provides that the

holder of a licence can drive any vehicle of the description

mentioned therein. Where authorization is granted to drive

33

transport vehicle, it is expressly so provided by making an

endorsement to that effect.

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 authorized 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, Insurance

Company could not be made liable to pay compensation.

xxx

40. It is no doubt true that in Ashok Gangadhar, in

spite of the fact that the driver was holding valid driving

licence to ply Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), this Court

upheld the claim and ordered the Insurance Company to

pay compensation. But, in our considered opinion, the

learned counsel for the Insurance Company is right in

submitting that it was because of the fact that there was

neither pleading nor proof as regards the permit issued by

the Transport Authority. In absence of pleading and proof,

this Court held that, it could not be said that the driver had

no valid licence to ply the vehicle which met with an

accident and he could not be deprived of the compensation.

This is clear if one reads paragraph 11 of the judgment,

which reads thus:

34

"11. 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 though 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".

(emphasis supplied)

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.

42. In the present case, all the facts were before the

District Forum. It considered the assertion of the

complainant and defence of the Insurance Company in the

light of the relevant documentary evidence and held that it

was established that the vehicle which met with an accident

35

was a 'transport vehicle'. Ram Narain was having a licence

to drive Light Motor Vehicle only and there was no

endorsement as required by Section 3 of the Act read with

Rule 16 of the Rules and Form No.6. In view of necessary

documents on record, the Insurance Company was right in

submitting that Ashok Gangadhar does not apply to the

case on hand and the Insurance Company was not liable.

43. The matter can be looked from another angle

also. Section 14 referred to above, provides for currency of

licence to drive motor vehicles. Sub-section (2) thereof

expressly enacts that:

“14(2) A driving licence issued or renewed under

the Act shall, -

(a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport

vehicle, be effective for a period of three years":

It also states that:

“14. (2)(b) in the case of any other licence, --

(i) if the person obtaining the licence, either

originally or on renewal thereof, had not attained the age

of fifty years on the date of issue or, as the case may be,

renewal thereof, --

(A) be effective for a period of twenty years from the

date of such issue or renewal;".

It is thus clear that if a licence is issued or renewed

in respect of a transport vehicle, it can be done only for a

period of three years. But, in case of any other vehicle,

such issuance or renewal can be for twenty years provided

36

the person in whose favour licence issued or renewed had

not attained the age of 50 years. In the present case, the

licence was renewed on November 17, 1995 upto

November 16, 2015 i.e. for a period of twenty years. From

this fact also, it is clear that the licence was in respect of 'a

motor vehicle other than the transport vehicle.”

44. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company

also referred to a decision of this Court in National

Insurance Company vs. Kusum Rai & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC

250, wherein this Court held that if the vehicle is a taxi

which is being driven by a driver holding licence for

driving Light Motor Vehicle only without there being any

endorsement for driving transport vehicle, the Insurance

Company cannot be ordered to pay compensation.”

d. Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2008)

8 SCC 165

Where the driver had failed to renew his licence as on the

date of accident and had not filed any application within 30 days

after expiry of the licence seeking such renewal but had obtained

renewal much later, it was held that there was a breach of a policy

condition and that the Insurance company was not liable to

indemnify the Insured.

37

e. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa

Nesaria, (2008) 3 SCC 464,

A vehicle involved in the accident had a “goods carriage”

permit. It had met with an accident on 9.12.1999. The driver held

a licence to drive a light motor vehicle. The question whether he

held a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle

was answered in the affirmative on the following reasoning.

“11. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was

enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor

vehicles, is a complete code.

12. Section 2 of the Act provides for interpretation of

the terms contained herein. It employs the words “unless the

context otherwise requires”. Section 2(16) of the Act defines

“heavy goods vehicle” 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.”

13. Section 2(21) defines “light motor vehicle” and

Section 2(23) defines “medium goods vehicle” as under:

“2.(21) ‘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;

38

***

(23) ‘Medium goods vehicle’ means any goods

carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods

vehicle.”

14. Section 3 of the Act is in the following terms:

“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 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.”

15. The Central Government has framed Rules known

as The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

16. The word “Form” has been defined in Rule 2(e) to

mean a Form appended to the rules.

“Form 4

I 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”

39

After amendment the relevant portion of Form 4 reads as

under:

“Form 4

I 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.”

17. 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.

18. Clause (e) provides for “Transport vehicle” which

has been substituted by G.S.R. 221(E) with effect from

28.3.2001. Before the amendment in 2001, the entries

“medium good vehicle” and “heavy goods vehicle” existed

which have been substituted by “transport vehicle”. As

noticed hereinbefore, “Light Motor Vehicles” also found

place therein.

19. “Light Motor Vehicle” 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:

“Authorisation to drive transport vehicle

Number................... Date........

40

Authorised to drive transport vehicle with effect from.......

Badge number .........

Signature

Designation of the licensing

authority

Name and designation of the authority who

conducted the driving test.”

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.

22. 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).”

41

f. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Angad Kol and others (2009

ACJ 1411)

The driver of a goods transport vehicle holding a licence to

drive a light motor vehicle was not said to be holding a valid and

effective driving licence with reference to the period for which a

licence to drive a transport vehicle is granted, the apex court has

held thus :

“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.

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.

42

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. vs. 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 :

"16. 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.

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."

g. National Insurance Company v. Vidhyadar Mahariwala &

others, (2008) 12 SCC 701

This matter related to the contention of the appellant that on

the date of accident, i.e., 11.6.2004, the driving licence of the

driver of the offending vehicle was not valid and therefore had no

43

liability. The appellant’s claim for exoneration was on the ground

of violation of policy condition. The driver’s licence was initially

valid for the period from 15.12.1997 to 14.12.2000 and thereafter

from 29.12.2000 to 14.12.2003. Thereafter, it was again renewed

from 16.5.2005 to 15.5.2008. The Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal held that though on the date of accident the driving

licence was not valid, since the driver’s licence was renewed on

16.5.2005 for a further period of three years it cannot be said that

during the intervening period the driver was incompetent or

disqualified to drive the truck. In appeal before the High Court it

was held by a Single Judge that the insurer was liable to

indemnify the award.

It was held by the apex court that the view taken in Ishwar

Chandra v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, (2007)10 SCC

650, was applicable and that the insurance company would have

no liability in a case of the said nature and the appeal by the

insurance company was allowed.

44

H.S. Iyyappan v. United India Insurance Company Limited,

(2013) 7 SCC 62,

This case involved a cyclist who was injured by the insured

vehicle, a commercial light motor vehicle, having dashed against

him and which was driven by a driver possessing a licence to

drive a light motor vehicle but without an endorsement to drive a

transport vehicle. The apex court held that the Insurance company

was liable to pay the compensation, with a right to recover the

same from the insured. It was held that the claimant was a third-

party and would have the benefit of the decisions in Swaran

Singh’s case, Kusum Rai’s case and others and that the date of

the accident was 23.5.1998 and hence the decision in Nesaria

would also apply.

i. Kulwant Singh v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [Civil

Appeal Nos. 9927-28 of 2014 arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.1499-

1500 of 2014]

[Civil Appeal Nos. 9929-30 of 2014 arising out of SLP (Civil)

Nos. 29128-29129 of 2014 (Cc Nos.4232-4233 of 2014)]decided

on 28.10.2014

45

The facts of the case and the point for consideration are

stated thus in the judgment.

“The question raised for consideration was whether

the Insurance Company is entitled to recovery rights on the

ground of breach of conditions of insurance policy when the

driver possessed a valid driving licence for driving a light

vehicle, but fails to obtain endorsement for driving a goods

vehicle.

The claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident

Claims Tribunal by the dependents of the deceased Rizwan

S/o Kadir @ Abdul Kadir, who died in a road accident on 8th

October, 2005 at about 05.30 a.m., while driving Tempo

No.HR-G-5234, which was hit by a Tempo (Tata-407) bearing

No.DL-1L-D3186. The Tribunal held that the death was on

account of negligence of the driver of the offending Tempo

(Tata-407) bearing No.DL-1L-D3186 and the claimants were

entitled to compensation.

The vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company

and the driver was having a valid driving licence. The

offending vehicle was a 'light goods vehicle'. The Insurance

Company preferred an appeal before the High Court with the

plea that it was entitled to recovery rights as the driving

licence (Exhibit R3W1) was for driving a 'light motor vehicle'.

It could not be equated with a 'light goods vehicle'.

The High Court observed:

46

"Driving licence of the driver was for driving a light

motor vehicle. In no manner can it be said that a light motor

vehicle can be equated with a light goods vehicle. In this

scenario, it is clear that there was a breach of the policy

condition and driver of the vehicle did not have a valid and

effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Recovery

rights should have been granted by the Tribunal against the

owner. The award is modified. Recovery rights are granted in

favour of the Insurance Company."

Aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court, the

appellants - the owners of the vehicle in question had come up

before this Court.”

In its brief reasoning, the apex court has relied upon

Iyyapan’s case and Nesaria’s case, which is perplexing. For the

reason that in so far as Iyyapan’s case is concerned, it was

specifically held thus, therein :

“It is the statutory right of a third party to recover

the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer.

It is for the Insurer to proceed against the insured for

recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation

of any condition of the insurance policy”

This aspect has been apparently overlooked by the apex

court in the above decision.

47

Further, the decision in Nesaria would have no application

as the court was dealing with an accident of the year 2005, while

in Nesaria, the accident was of a period prior to the amendment

of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, made with effect from

28.3.2001. The said decision may, therefore, require a review by

the apex court.

13. On an over all consideration of the above, it is evident

that the first two questions framed for consideration in this

judgment are no longer res integra. In that, in both instances

there is a breach of condition of the contract of insurance and the

Insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree. But it

does not mean that it did not have the initial liability at all.

Section 149 of the MV Act makes it mandatory on the part of the

insurer to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in

respect of third-party risk. The provision has been inserted in

order to protect the persons travelling in vehicles or using the road

from the risk attendant upon the user of the motor vehicles on the

48

road. Hence it is made obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be

used unless a third-party insurance is in force. Hence, the insurer

cannot disown its liability on the ground that the driver was not

holding a valid and effective driving licence as on the date of the

accident. It is the statutory right of a third-party, to recover the

amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the

insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount

in the event there has been a violation of any condition of the

insurance policy. (See: Skandia Insurance Company Limited vs.

Kokilaben Chandravadan, (1987)2 SCC 654; Sohanlal Passio vs.

P. Sesh Reddy and others, (1996) 5 SCC 21; New India Assurance

Company, Shimla vs. Kamla, (2001)4 SCC 342; National

Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh, (2004)3 SCC 297;

National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kusum Rai, (2006) 4

SCC 250; Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanjappan

and others, (2004)13 SCC 224; S. Iyyappan vs. United Indian

Insurance Company Limited, (2013) 7 SCC 62;)

49

However, the liability of the Insurer would not be attracted,

in the above manner – when the claim is by any person claiming

under the Insured, such as the driver of an offending vehicle.

14. In the light of the above, the facts, as are relevant for the

consideration of the controversy involved, in each of these

appeals, are briefly narrated hereunder.

MFA 21080/2009

This appeal is filed by the insurance company questioning

the liability fastened on it, in a claim for compensation before the

Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. The claimant was

said to be the driver of a medium goods vehicle bearing

Registration no.KA 29/3996. The same is said to have collided

into a truck as on 21.12.2007. The claimant having suffered a

fracture of the tibia and fibula, and having been assessed with a

permanent disability of 23-28 % to the particular limb, was

claiming compensation. The commissioner has awarded

50

compensation in a sum of Rs.1,85,951/- and has fastened the

liability on the insurer.

The driving licence held by the claimant, who was the

driver of the offending vehicle, was in respect of a Light motor

vehicle, (non-transport) and was issued for a period of twenty

years.

Hence a substantial question of law as to whether the

driving licence possessed by the driver- claimant of the offending

vehicle, as on the date of the accident, could be said to be a valid

and effective driving licence, would arise for consideration.

In the light of the settled legal position, the answer is in the

negative.

Having regard to a clear breach of the policy condition as

the driver of the insured offending vehicle not possessing a valid

and effective licence, the liability of the insurer is not attracted.

The appeal in MFA 21080/2009 is allowed. The liability

fastened on the insurance company is set aside. The amount in

deposit be refunded to the appellant - insurer.

51

MFA 22392/2009

This appeal is by the insurance company questioning the

liability fastened on it.

The facts are as follows:

The claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims

Tribunal, were the legal representatives of a rider of a two

wheeler, which had collided with a goods vehicle, duly insured by

the appellant. The claim was resisted by the appellant on the

ground that the driver of the offending vehicle held a licence to

drive a light motor vehicle (non-transport) and the same was

issued for a period of twenty years, for the period 11.4.2007 to

10.4.2027. The date of accident was 25.4.2008. Notwithstanding

that the licence had been subsequently endorsed enabling the

driver to drive heavy transport vehicles for the period 9-3-2009 to

8-3-2012. The point for consideration raised in the appeal is

whether the driver held a valid and effective driving licence as on

the date of the accident.

52

Having regard to the law laid down in the aforesaid

decisions, the answer is in the negative.

However, the apex court in S.Iyyappan’s case supra,

wherein after a review of the case law, it is held thus :

“16. The heading “Insurance of Motor Vehicles

against Third-Party Risks” given in Chapter XI of the Motor

Vehicles Act, 1988 (Chapter VIII of the 1939 Act) itself

shows the intention of the legislature to make third-party

insurance compulsory and to ensure that the victims of

accident arising out of use of motor vehicles would be able

to get compensation for the death or injuries suffered. The

provision has been inserted in order to protect the persons

travelling in vehicles or using the road from the risk

attendant upon the user of the motor vehicles on the road.

To overcome this ugly situation , the legislature has made it

obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a

third-party insurance is in force.

17. Reading the provisions of Sections 146 and 147

of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is evidently clear that in certain

circumstances the insurer’s right is safeguarded but in any

event the insurer has to pay compensation when a valid

certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact

that the insurer may proceed against the insured for

recovery of the amount. Under Section 149 of the Motor

53

Vehicles Act, the insurer can defend the action inter alia on

the grounds, namely,

(i) the vehicle was not driven by a named person,

(ii) it was being driven by a person who was not

having a duly granted licence, and

(iii) person driving the vehicle was disqualified to

hold and obtain a driving licence.

Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot

disown its liability on the ground that although the driver

was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but

before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial

vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was

obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the

statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of

compensation so awarded form the insurer. It is for the

insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the

amount in the event there has been violation of any

condition of the insurance policy.”

In the light of the above, the appellant - insurer is bound to

satisfy the award and proceed against the insured for recovery of

the amount, as there has been a clear violation of a condition of

the insurance policy. The amount of compensation in deposit be

released in favour of the claimants.

54

MFA 22002 / 2010

The appeal is by the insurance company questioning the

liability fastened on the insurance company.


The claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,

was the rider of a two wheeler, which had collided with a

passenger carrying commercial vehicle, duly insured by the

appellant. The claim was resisted by the appellant on the ground

that the driver of the offending vehicle held a licence to drive a

light motor vehicle (non-transport) and the same was issued for a

period of twenty years, for the period 6.8.2005 to 5.8.2025 and the

driver was not authorised to drive a Passenger Carrying

Commercial vehicle as on the date of the accident. The date of

accident was 30.6.2008.

The point for consideration raised in the appeal is whether

the driver held a valid and effective driving licence as on the date

of the accident.

55


decisions, the answer is in the negative. However, the decision in

S.Iyyappan’s case supra covers the present case on hand on all

fours, insofar as the Insurer’s liability is concerned.




the insurance policy.

The statutory amount in deposit to be remitted to the

Tribunal for the benefit of the claimant and the appellant to

deposit the remaining amount of compensation within a period of

four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

The claimants are permitted to withdraw the same on such deposit.

MFA 23825/2009 & MFA 23824/2009

These appeals are by the insurance company questioning

the liability fastened on the insurance company in MVC

Nos.10/2009 and 11/2009.

56


The claimant in MVC No.10/2009 before the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal was the injured son of one Manjunath

Ramaray Shet, who had died on account of a truck having dashed

against him. In respect of which, a claim was also lodged by the

claimant as well as his mother, sister and brothers, as legal

representatives in MVC No.11/2009. The claimant in MVC

10/2009 had claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.

The claims were resisted by the appellants on the ground

that the driver of the offending vehicle held a licence to drive a

light motor vehicle for the period 7.3.2001 to 6.3.2021.

Notwithstanding that he had subsequently obtained a licence to

drive a transport vehicle with effect from 19.1.2005 to 18.1.2008.

The date of accident was 6.7.2008 and therefore, the licence to

drive a transport vehicle had expired and was not valid as on the

date of the accident.

57



of the accident.


decisions, the answer is in the negative. However, the decision in


fours insofar as the Insurer’s liability is concerned.





The statutory amount in deposit be remitted to the tribunal

for the benefit of the claimants and the appellant to deposit the

remaining amount of compensation within a period of four weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

58

MFA 20299/2010



Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation. The claimant was

said to be the driver of a goods vehicle bearing Registration

no.KA 27/7249. The same is said to have collided into a motor

cycle as on 9.9.2007. The claimant having suffered a fracture of

the vertebra and having been assessed with a permanent disability

of 55% was claiming compensation. The commissioner has

awarded compensation in a sum of Rs.1,42,330/- and has

fastened the liability on the insurer.

The driving licence held by the claimant, who was the


vehicle, (non-transport) and was issued for a period of twenty

years. The claimant had subsequently obtained a licence to drive

a transport vehicle with effect from 26.10.2007. The date of

accident was 9.9.2007.

59

Hence a substantial question of law as to whether the

driving licence possessed by the driver- claimant of the offending

vehicle as on the date of the accident could be said to be a valid

and effective driving licence, would arise for consideration.


negative.




The appeal is allowed. The liability fastened on the

insurance company is set aside. The amount in deposit be

refunded to the appellant - insurer.

MFA 20907/2010



Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. While the claimant was said to

be travelling in a goods vehicle bearing Registration no.KA

37/6402, to go to Gadag. The same is said to have collided into a

60

motor cycle as on 9.9.2007. The claimant having suffered

traumatic rupture of the globe of the right eye and having been

assessed with a permanent disability of 54% was claiming

compensation. The commissioner has awarded compensation in

a sum of Rs.5,46,463/- and has fastened the liability on the

insurer, owner and the respondent – driver.

The driving licence held by the respondent, who was the


vehicle, (non-transport), and was issued for a period of twenty

years. Whereas at the time of the accident, the claimant was

driving a goods vehicle. Hence a substantial question of law as to

whether the driving licence possessed by the driver of the

offending vehicle as on the date of the accident could be said to be

a valid and effective driving licence, would arise for

consideration.


negative.

61




The appeal in MFA 20299/2010 is allowed. The liability

fastened on the insurance company is set aside. The amount in

deposit be refunded to the appellant - insurer.

MFA 23011/2009



Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The claimant was said to be

riding pillion on a two-wheeler bearing Registration no.KA 34/H-

3099. The same is said to have collided into a jeep as on

22.4.2006. The claimant, according to the wound certificate,

having suffered a simple injury and a grievous injury, namely, a

distal 1/3rd

comminuted fracture of left femur, was claiming

compensation. The Tribunal has awarded compensation in a sum

62

of Rs.1,17,000/- and has fastened the liability on the insurer and

the owner.

The driving licence held by the driver of the offending

vehicle, was in respect of a Light motor vehicle, (non-transport)

and was issued for a period of twenty years for the period

20.3.2006 to 19.3.2026 and it was not endorsed to enable him to

drive a transport vehicle of any kind.

Hence, a substantial question of law that would arise for

consideration is as to whether the driving licence possessed by the

driver- claimant of the offending vehicle, as on the date of the

accident could be said to be a valid and effective driving licence,

would arise for consideration.


decisions, the answer is in the negative. The decision in


fours.



63



The statutory amount in deposit be remitted to the Tribunal

for the benefit of the claimant and the appellant to deposit the

remaining amount of compensation within a period of four weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The claimants

are permitted to withdraw the same on such deposit.

MFA 23012/2009

This appeal is by the insurance company questioning the

liability fastened on the insurance company in MVC 579/2006.

The claimant was said to be riding a two-wheeler bearing

Registration no.KA 34/H-3099. The same is said to have collided

into a jeep as on 22.4.2006. The claimant having suffered injuries

was claiming compensation. The Tribunal has awarded

compensation in a sum of Rs.1,48,000/- and has fastened the

liability on the insurer and the owner.

64

The claim was resisted by the appellant on the ground that

the driver of the offending vehicle held a licence to drive a light

motor vehicle for the period 20.3.2006 to 19.3.2026 and that the

vehicle in question was not a light motor vehicle.



of the accident.


negative.




The appeal is allowed. The liability fastened on the

insurance company is set aside. The amount in deposit be

refunded to the appellant - insurer.

Sd/-

JUDGE

nv*

dated this the 05 th day of january 2015...

Documents