Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Singh vs Pappi Mehta And Ors on 6 November, 2024
Author: Sudeepti Sharma
Bench: Sudeepti Sharma
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146578
FAO-2412-2006
2006 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
FAO
FAO-2412-2006 (O&M)
Date of Decision : 06.11.2024
SUKHWINDER SINGH ....APPELLANT
VERSUS
PAPPI MEHTA AND ORS ....RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Present: Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate
for the appellant.
appellant
Mr. Ranvir Singh Mander, Advocate for
LRs No. (ii),(vi), (vii) and (viii)of
of respondent No.2.
Mr. V. Ramswaroop, Advocate for respondent Nos.11 and 12.
-.-
SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant
appellant-Sukhwinder
Sukhwinder
Singh, who is the driver of the offending vehicle, against the award dated
01.12.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jalandhar (for
short, ‘the Tribunal’) under Section 166
166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, whereby,
an amount of compensation of Rs.2,95,000/-
Rs.2,95,000/ along with interest @ 7% per annum
was awarded to the claimant. However the liability was fastened upon the
appellant-driver.
driver.
FACTS NOT IN DISPUTE
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 6.3.2004 at about 4:30 P.M., Brij
Mohan was going alongwith his brother Balwinder Mohan on his scooter No. PB-
PB
08-AL-3429
3429 was going from village Nangal Shama to their house. He was driving
the scooter and when they reached
reached near Chogitti Chowki, a jeep make Mahindra
bearing registration No. PB-08-R-9910
PB 9910 which was being driven by the appellant-
appellant
1 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 22:04:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146578
FAO-2412-2006
2006 (O&M)
-2-
Sukhwinder Singh in a rash and negligent manner, came from Lamma Pind Chowk
side. The appellant without blowing any horn struck the jeep against the scooter of
the Brij Mohan Mehta, as a result of which he fell down and received multiple
injuries on the various parts of his body. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Jalandhar
and then to Satyam Hospital where he remained in coma for about 330
0 days. He
remained admitted there from 6.3.2004 to 18.4.2004. The accident was caused by
the appellant by driving the offending jeep in a rash and negligent manner. The
injured Brij Mohan Mehta ultimately died on 15.7.2004 due to the injuries received
by him in the accident. An FIR No. 52 was got registered against the appellant on
9.3.2004 at Police Station Division No.8 under Section 279, 337, 338 IPC. The
deceased was 48 years old at the time of accident. He was the proprietor of M/s
Vashav Karma Tools Industries and was earning Rs. 10,000/
10,000/- per month.
3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and denied
the factum of compensation.
4. From the pleading of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following
issues:-
“1. Whether Brij Mohan
n received injuries and lateron dieddue to accident which took place on 6.3.2004 at Chogitti
Chowk, Jalandhar, due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep
make Mahindra PB-08-R-9910,
9910, by its driver SukhwinderSingh? OPP
2. Whether the claimant is entitled tto
o the claim as prayedfor, if so, to what extent and from whom? OPP
3. Whether the present petition is not maintainable? OPR
4. Whether driver was not holding a valid driving licence, if
so, its effect? OPR
2 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 22:04:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146578FAO-2412-2006
2006 (O&M)
-3-
5. Whether the offending vehicle i.e. Jeep PB
PB-08-R-9910
9910
was not insured at the time of accident, if so, its effect? OPR
6. Relief.”
5. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on
record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.2,95,000/-
Rs.2,95,000/
alongwith interest @ 7% per annum. Hence the present appeal.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSELS OF THE PARTIES
6. The learned counsel for the appellant
appellant-driver
driver contends that the liability
of the driver has wrongly been fixed firstly on the ground that the vehicle was not
insured and
d secondly that the driver was not having a valid driving licence, at the
time of accident.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent – Insurance Company
contends that the accident took place on 06.03.2004 and the policy Ex.R
Ex.R-2
2 was
valid from 23.01.2003
01.2003 to 22.01.2004, therefore, at the time of accident, the vehicle
was not insured. He further contends that the driver was not having a valid driving
licence, since in the licence word ‘jeep’ was not mentioned and he was driving
jeep.
8. I have heard
heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole
record of this case.
9. The accident took place on 06.03.2004. The cover note was issued on
20.03.2003 and the date of the expiry of the insurance on the cover note is dated
22.03.2004. It is nowhere
ere stated that the document of insurance policy is forged
one. It is on record that this was issued to the appellant, and the vehicle was
insured at the time of the accident i.e on 06.03.2004. So far as the validity of the
insurance policy (Ex.R-2)
(Ex.R is concerned, it is from 23.01.2003 to 22.01.2004 and
the policy is dated 03.08.2005,, which apparently shows that this document was
3 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 22:04:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146578
FAO-2412-2006
2006 (O&M)
-4-
prepared during the pendency of the claim petition
petition. No insurance policy is valid
beyond its expiry date. A perusal of the Insurance
Insurance Policy shows that it covers the
period from 23.01.2003 to 22.01.2004, yet the issuance date of the policy is dated
03.08.2005 i.e after a gap of nearly 1 year and 8 months of the expiry of the
Insurance policy, which is not believable. If the insu
insurance
rance policies are issued after
the expiry of the date of insurance policy, then the whole purpose of the policy
would be defeated. This discrepancy indicates that the document may have been
prepared by the insurance company to avo
avoid the liability for paying
ng the
compensation. Thus, the argument of learned counsel for the respondent
respondent-Insurance
Insurance
Company is not acceptable to this Court and it is concluded that the vehicle was
very much insured at the time of the accident,
accident, which is duly proved by cover note
(which
h is on record).
record)
10. So far as the issue regarding valid driving licence of the appellant is
concerned, the learned Tribunal held that the appellant was not having any driving
licence to drive a jeep and the driving licence wa
was to drive the scooter or car only
and, therefore, made the appellant liable to pay the compensation.
11. A perusal of the record shows that there is no dispute regarding
authenticity of the driving licence and it is proved on record to be genuine driving
licence.
12. Further driving licence is valid from 18.12.1997 to 14.06.2016 and the
accident took place on 06.03.2004, therefore, the appellant had the valid driving
licence on the date of the accident.
accident
13. A reference to the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 may, therefore be apposite. A three
three-judge
judge bench
of this Court noted that the liability of the insurance company in relation to the
4 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 22:04:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146578
FAO-2412-2006
2006 (O&M)
-5-
owner depends on several factors. The issue of lack of valid driving license was
discussed as under:
“7. If a person has been given a licence for a particular type of
vehicle as specified therein, he cannot be said to have no licence for
driving another type of vehicle which is of the same category but of
different type. As for example, when a person is grant
granted
ed a licence fordriving a light motor vehicle, he can drive either a car or a jeep and it
is not necessary that he must have driving licence both for car and
jeep separately.
89. 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 the Central Government to
prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles
mentioned in sub-section
sub section (2) of the said section. The various types ofvehicles 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
vehicle of other specified description. The definition clausein Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which
are covered in broad types mentioned in sub
sub-section
section (2) of Section 10.
They are “goods carriage”, “heavy goods vehicle”, “heavy passenger
motor vehicle”, “invalid carriage”, “light motor vehicle”, “maxi
“maxi-cab”,
cab”,
“medium goods vehicle”, “medium passenger motor vehicle”, “motor-
“motor
cab”, “motorcycle”, “omnibus”, “private service vehicle”, “semi-
“semi
trailer”, “tourist vehicle”, “tractor”, “trail
“trailer”
er” and “transport vehicle”.
5 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 22:04:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146578
FAO-2412-2006
2006 (O&M)
-6-
In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches
with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for
consideration before the Tribunal as 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
“maxi-cab”, “motor-cab”
cab” or “omnibus” 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 the accident
was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening
causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no
nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the
insurer will not be allowed to avoid its lliability
iability merely for technicalbreach of conditions concerning driving licence.
90. We have construed and determined the scope of sub
sub-clause
clause (ii)of sub-section
sub section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. Minor breaches of licenceconditions, such as want of medical ffitness
itness certificate, requirementabout 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
deviations with regard to licensing conditionswould not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage
of insurance to the third parties.”
6 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 22:04:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146578
FAO-2412-2006
2006 (O&M)
-7-
14. This Court in FAO-3947-2007
FAO 2007 titled as ”The Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd., Chandigarh versus Asha Devi and Others’ decided on
04.10.2024 held as under:-
under:
“10. I do not find any infirmity in the reasoning given by the learned
Tribunal in rejecting the contention of the appellant/respondent No.2
i.e. Oriental Insurance Company, with respect to the posse
possessing
ssing of thedriving licence to drive scooter, motorcycle, car, jeep and tractor and
not three-wheeler.
three wheeler. The issue raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant is no longer res-integra
res integra and decided by the Hon’ble ApexCourt in the case of “Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance
11, wherein it was held that when a driver is
Company” 2017(4) TAC 11,holding a licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’, he is competent to
drive a ‘transport vehicle’ of that category without specific
endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. The relevant paras of the
same are reproduced as under:-
under:
“46. Section 10 of the Act requires a driver to hold a licence
with respect to the class of vehicles and not with respect to the
type of vehicles. In one class of vehicles, there may be di
different
fferentkinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same class of vehicles, no
separate endorsement is required to drive such vehicles. As
light motor vehicle includes transport vehicle also, a holder of
light motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class
including transport vehicles. It was pre
pre-amended
amended position aswell the post amended position of Form 4 as amended on
28.3.2001. Any other interpretation would be repugnant to the
definition of “light motor vehicle” in section 2(21) and the
7 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 22:04:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146578FAO-2412-2006
2006 (O&M)
-8-
provisions
ions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989,other provisions and also the forms which are in tune with the
provisions. Even otherwise the forms never intended to exclude
transport vehicles from the category of ‘light motor vehicles’
and for lightt motor vehicle, the validity period of such licence
hold good and apply for the transport vehicle of such class also
and the expression in Section 10(2)(e) of the Act ‘Transport
Vehicle’ would include medium goods vehicle, medium
passenger motor vehicle, heavy goods vehicle, heavy passenger
motor vehicle which earlier found place in section 10(2)(e) to
(h) and our conclusion is fortified by the syllabus and rules
which wehave discussed. Thus we answer the questions which
are referred to us thus:
(i) ‘Lightt motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the
Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight
prescribed in section 2(21) read with section 2(15) and
2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the
definition of the light motor vehic
vehicle
le by virtue ofAmendmentAct No.54/1994.
(ii) A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle
weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would
be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or
a road roller, ‘unladen weight’ of which do
does
es not exceed7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of
“light motor vehicle” as provided in section 10(2)(d) is
competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the
8 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 22:04:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146578FAO-2412-2006
2006 (O&M)
-9-
gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg.
or a motor car orr tractor or road
road-roller,
roller, the “unladen
weight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say,
no separate endorsement on the licence is required to
drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as
enumerated above. A licence issued under section
sectio
10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act
54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form.
(iii) The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act
No.54/1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 while substituting clauses
(e) to (h) of section 10(2) which contained “medium
goods
ds vehicle” in section 10(2)(e), medium passenger
motor vehicle in section 10(2)(f), heavygoods vehicle in
section 10(2)(g) and “heavy passenger motor vehicle” in
section 10(2)(h) with expression ‘transport vehicle’ as
substituted in section 10(2)(e) relat
related
ed only to the
aforesaid substituted classes only. It does not exclude
transport vehicle, from the purview of section 10(2)(d)
and section 2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.
(iv) The effect of amendment of Form 4 by insertion of
“transport vehicle” is related only to the categories
which were substituted in the year 1994 and the
procedure to obtain driving licence for transport vehicle
of class of “light motor vehicle” continues to be the same
as it was and has not been changed and there is no
requirement
rement to obtain separate endorsement to drive
9 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 22:04:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146578
FAO-2412-2006
2006 (O&M)
-10
– –
transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to
drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle
of such class without any endorsement to that effect.”
15. This Court in Oriental Insurance C
Co.Ltd.
o.Ltd. vs. Smt.Lalanwati and
others,, 2012 (1) PLR 397 held as under:-
“7. Coming to the question of validity of the driving licence, the
driving licence held by respondent no.1 authorised him to drive the
motorcycle, scooter, car and tractor. Jeep is not sspecifically
pecificallymentioned in the licence and, therefore, the licence on the face of it
does not authorise respondent No.1 to drive the jeep. However, it is
not a case where the vehicle being driven by respondent No.1 is goods
carrier or a transport vehicle. Jeep
Jeep falls within the definition of LightMotor Vehicle (LMV) under section 2(21) of the Act and there is no
separate definition of jeep available in the Act.”
16. This Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Sanjay
Kumar and others, ivil) 242 held as under:-
others 2011 (2) RCR (Civil)
“8. As regards the validity of the driving licence Ex. R
R-1,
1, it hasbeen argued that respondent No. 1 was not holding a valid
licence for driving the offending vehicle as he had a licence to
drive Scooter, Motorcycle and Car only aand
nd there is noendorsement on it with regard to driving of Jeep also. In this
regard, it may be observed that the Car and the Jeep
principally are having same mechanism, both are Light Motor
Vehicles. There is nothing to suggest that if accident was
directly
ly traceable to the holding of proper licence but it wasdue to rash driving which led to the bursting of the tyre. The
10 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 22:04:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146578FAO-2412-2006
2006 (O&M)
-11
– –
accident also did not take place due to mechanical failure or
that the driver was not holding the requisite type of licence. On
a similarr proposition, a Full Bench of this Hon’ble High Court
in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Parveen Kumar and others,
2005(1) RCR (Civil) 485 : 2005(1) PLR 230 observed as under
:-
The issue being no more res integra, needs no further
elaboration. We may, howe
however,
ver, hasten to add that theInsurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability to
pay the compensation by simply pleading that the licence
granted to the driver being for one class or description of
vehicle but the vehicle involved in the accident was ooff the
different class of description, unless it is proved that the
cause of accident was the licence granted to the driver
being for one class or description of vehicle but the
vehicle involved in the accident was of different class or
description. The obs
observations
ervations made by the SupremeCourt presuppose that if the driver was driving a vehicle
of which he might not be holding licence as such, but was
holding a driving licence of a different description of
vehicle, and the driving method of both the vehicles, for
which licence was obtained and the one which was being
driven, was the same and when even the mechanism of
the vehicle is also same, the defence projected by the
Insurance Company with regard to the driver not
11 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 22:04:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146578FAO-2412-2006
2006 (O&M)
-12
– –
possessing requisite type of licence could be of no avail
to it.
We thus overrule the view taken by the Division Bench in
National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) and hold that
if on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely
because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes
like mechanical
nical failures and similar other causes having
no nexus with 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, the defence projected by the
Insurance Company in the context of Section
149(2)(a)(ii) and proviso appended to sub
sub-sections
sections (4)
and (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can succeed only
if it is proved that the accident had taken place only
because the driver was not possessing requisite type of
licence.
9. The petitioner was holding a valid driving licence for driving
Car and Scooter and the mechanism of the Car is quite similar
to the mechanism of Jeep and no separate technique was
required to be learnt to drive the Jeep.”
17. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and by
this Court in the above mentioned judgments, there is no dispute with regard to the
issue that a person holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle (car), cannot be
said to have no licence for driving jeep. Itt is not necessary that he must have
driving licence both for car and jeep separately.
12 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 22:04:38 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146578
FAO-2412-2006
2006 (O&M)
-13
– –
18. Accordingly, the
the present appeal is allowed and the award dated
01.12.2005 is modified to the extent that the insurance company is liable to pay the
compensation to the claimants, as per ratio fixed by the learned Tribunal
Tribunal.
06.11.2024 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA)
G Arora JUDGE
Whether speaking/non-speaking
speaking/non speaking : Speaking
Whether reportable : Yes/No
13 of 13
::: Downloaded on – 16-11-2024 22:04:38 :::