Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
ASHOK GANGADHAR MARATHA
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/09/1999
BENCH:
D.P.Wadhwa, S.Saghir Ahmad
JUDGMENT:
D.P. Wadhwa, J.
Appellant has been non-suited by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (for short, the ’National
Commission’) on appeal by the insurer against the order of
the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short,
the ’State Commission’). Both the National Commission and
the State Commission have been constituted under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986. By judgment dated December
30, 1993 the State Commission had allowed the complaint of
the appellant and had directed the respondent-insurer to pay
to the complainant-appellant a sum of Rs.2,70,000/- with
interest @ 18% per annum from the date of the accident till
payment for satisfying his claim under the policy issued by
the respondent. The claim was made on account of damage
caused to the motor vehicle belonging to the appellant and
insured with the respondent. Appellant was the owner of a
Swaraj Mazda truck, a light motor vehicle bearing
registration No.KA 28 567. The vehicle was insured with the
respondent insurance company in the sum of Rs.2,82,000/- as
per policy bearing No. MV/3440/91 for a period from
February 17, 1991 to February 16, 1992. There is no dispute
that the vehicle in question is a light motor vehicle
weighing less than 6,000 kg. The vehicle met with an
accident on November 26, 1991 and was completely damaged.
Appellant lodged his claim with the insurer under the
insurance policy covering the vehicle. Since the insurer
refused to honour its commitment under the insurance policy,
the appellant filed complaint with the State Commission
claiming Rs.5,61,000/-. State Commission allowed the claim
of the appellant to the extent of Rs.2,70,000/- and granted
him interest @ 18% per annum with effect from the date of
accident, i.e., November 26, 1991. The appellant also
awarded cost amounting to Rs.2,500/-. State Commission
negatived the plea of the insurer that the vehicle was not
being driven by person having an effective driving licence.
Against the judgment of the State Commission, insurer filed
appeal before the National Commission which was allowed by
the impugned judgment dated May 4, 1995. National
Commission accepted the stand of the insurer as spelled out
in para 14 of the counter affidavit filed by the insurer
before the State Commission. This para 14 we reproduce as
under : "This respondent states that the said assessment of
the surveyor was subject to the condition that the insured
had not violated the terms and conditions of the policy.
This respondent states that on verification of the documents
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
produced by the insured revealed that the vehicle in
question was a light goods vehicle and hence a transport
vehicle. The driving particulars of the driver, Naga Saheb
Jadhav which were produced by the insured disclosed that he
had held a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle only
which was valid for the period 27.2.90 to 26.2.99. This
driving licence, thus revealed that Naga Saheb Jadhav was
not authorised to drive a transport vehicle. This
respondent states that the insured had committed breach of
the terms of the policy and violated the provisions of M.V.
Act, 1988 in entrusting a transport vehicle to a person who
had not held a valid driving licence to drive a transport
vehicle and as a consequence thereof, this respondent was
not liable to indemnify their insured in respect of the own
damage claim lodged vide his claim form dated 10.12.1991."
Under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for
short, the ’Act’), no person shall drive a Motor Vehicle in
any public place unless he holds an effective driving
licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle.
Section 3 is as under : "3. Necessity for driving
licence.-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any
public place unless he holds an effective driving licence
issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no
person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor
cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any
scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 unless his
driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The
conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply
to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor
vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central
Government."
This section uses two expressions, namely, "motor
vehicle" and "effective driving licence". "Effective" would
mean a valid licence both as regards the period and type of
vehicle. We are not considering here otherwise any
incapacity of the person holding a driving licence.
"Driving licence", "Motor vehicle" or "vehicle", "transport
vehicle", "light motor vehicle", "goods carriage", "heavy
goods vehicle" and "medium goods vehicle" have been defined
in Section 2 of the Act as under : "driving licence"
(clause 10) means the licence issued by a competent
authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified
therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor
vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or
description; "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" [clause (28)]
means any mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use
upon roads whether the power of propulsion is transmitted
thereto from an external or internal source and includes a
chassis to which a body has not been attached and a trailer;
but does not include a vehicle running upon fixed rails or a
vehicle of a special type adapted for use only in a factory
or in any other enclosed premises or a vehicle having less
than four wheels fitted with engine capacity of not
exceeding twenty-five cubic centimetres; "transport
vehicle" [clause (47)] means a public service vehicle, a
goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private
service vehicle; "light motor vehicle" [clause (21)] means
a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of
either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the
unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500
kilograms; "goods carriage" [clause (14)] means any motor
vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the
carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
or adapted when used for the carriage of goods; "heavy
goods vehicle" [clause (16)] means any goods carriage the
gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller
the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000
kilograms; and "medium goods vehicle" [clause (23)] means
any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a
heavy goods vehicle. Naga Saheb Jadhav, the driver was
having the driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle.
On the day of the accident, vehicle was not carrying any
goods. Contention of the insurer has been that the vehicle
was a goods carriage and thus a transport vehicle. Rule 16
of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 prescribes the form
under which a driving licence is to be issued. It is form
No.6. Jadhav was having a driving licence in form 6 which
was for driving a light motor vehicle. There was no
endorsement on his driving licence authorising him to drive
a transport vehicle. For a vehicle to be a transport
vehicle, it must be a goods carriage which in turn means any
motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the
carriage of goods or when not so constructed or adapted used
for the carriage of goods. We have the definitions of
"heavy goods vehicle" and "medium goods vehicle". There is
no definition of "light goods vehicle". Instead the
definition is of "light motor vehicle". If we apply the
definition of a "light motor vehicle" as given in clause
(21) of Section 2 of the Act to mean a "transport vehicle"
which in turn means a "goods carriage" then we have nowhere
the definition of a "light motor vehicle" without it being a
"goods carriage". Section 2 of the Act begins with the
words "unless in this Act the context otherwise requires".
We have, therefore, to give a meaningful interpretation to
"light motor vehicle" as given in clause (21). Clause (e)
of Rule 2 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 defines
"non-transport vehicle" to mean a motor vehicle which is not
a transport vehicle (clause (e) renumbered as clause (h) by
1993 Amendment to Rules). This definition would, therefore,
take out of the definition of ’transport vehicle" as given
in clause (21) light motor vehicles which are not goods
carriage. Chapter V of the Act contains provisions for
Control of Transport Vehicles. Under Section 66 of the Act
falling under this chapter no owner of a motor vehicle shall
use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle
in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually
carrying any passenger or goods except in accordance with
the conditions of permit granted by the prescribed authority
authorising the use of the vehicle in that place in the
manner in which the vehicle is being used. Sub-section (1)
of Section 66 we quote : 66. Necessity for permits.-(1) No
owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the
vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether
or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or
goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit
granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport
Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the
use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the
vehicle is being used : Provided that a stage carriage
permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be
specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as
a contract carriage; Provided further that a stage carriage
permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified
in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods
carriage either when carrying passengers or not; Provided
also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any
conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise
the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
or in connection with a trade or business carried on by
him."
Section 77 deals with an application for permit to use
a motor vehicle for the carriage of goods. Section 78
prescribes relevant considerations for processing such an
application. Section 79 provides for grant of goods
carriage permit. There is no evidence to record and no
claim has either been made by the insurer that the vehicle
in question was having a permit for goods carriage. If we
accept the contention of the insurer, there can never be any
light motor vehicle and there can never be any driving
licence for driving a light motor vehicle. We cannot put
such a construction on clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act
so as to exclude a light motor vehicle from the Act
altogether. Light motor vehicle is a motor vehicle to drive
for which Jadhav possessed effective driving licence. His
driving licence was valid on the date of accident. In
allowing the claim of the appellant the State Commission
held that "the driver who drove the vehicle at the time of
accident, had as a matter of fact, a valid driving licence
for driving a light motor vehicle and there is no material
on record to show that he was disqualified from holding or
obtaining such a licence at the time of accident. In view
of these facts and in the circumstances of the case, we are
satisfied that the policy does not insist on the driver
having a licence to drive, to obtain a specific endorsement
to drive a transport vehicle." We, however, do not subscribe
to such a view. Definition of "light motor vehicle" as
given in clause (21) of Section 2 of the Act can apply only
to a "light goods vehicle" or a "light transport vehicle".
A "light motor vehicle" otherwise has to be covered by the
definition of "motor vehicle" or "vehicle" as given in
clause (28) of Section 2 of the Act. A light motor vehicle
cannot always mean a light goods carriage. Light motor
vehicle can be non-transport vehicle as well. To reiterate,
since a vehicle cannot be used as transport vehicle on a
public road unless there is a permit issued by the Regional
Transport Authority for that purpose, and since in the
instant case there is neither a pleading to that effect by
any party nor is there any permit on record, the vehicle in
question would remain a light motor vehicle. The respondent
also does not say that any permit was granted to the
appellant for plying the vehicle as a transport vehicle
under Section 66 of the Act. Moreover, on the date of
accident, the vehicle was not carrying any goods, and
thought it could be said to have been designed to be used as
a transport vehicle or goods-carrier, it cannot be so held
on account of the statutory prohibition contained in Section
66 of the Act. It was pointed out by the appellant that the
legal representative of Jadhav, the driver, had filed a
petition for compensation under the Act. Insurer had
resisted the claim taking the stand that the driver of the
vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the
vehicle. The plea of the insurer was rejected by the Claims
Tribunal and petition for compensation was allowed and
compensation paid to the legal representative of the driver.
No appeal was preferred by the insurer in that case. In the
present case, the insurer alleged that the appellant had
committed breach of the terms of the insurance policy and
had violated the provisions of the Act by entrusting a
"transport vehicle" to a person who did not hold a valid
licence and the insurer was, thus, not liable to indemnify
appellant. Under the policy firstly light motor vehicle
meant the gross weight of which did not exceed 6,000
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
kilograms and secondly against the column "driver" the
policy stated: "Drivers clause:- Persons or classes of
persons entitled to drive:- any person including the
insured. Provided that a person driving holding an
effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is
not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.
Provided also that if a person holding an effective
learner’s licence may also drive the vehicle when not used
for the transport of goods at the time of the accident and
that such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of
the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989."
Now the vehicle in the present case weighed 5,920
kilograms and the driver had the driving licence to drive a
light motor vehicle. It is not that, therefore, the
insurance policy covered a transport vehicle which meant a
goods carriage. The whole case of the insurer has been
built on a wrong premise. It is itself the case of the
insurer that in the case of a light motor vehicle which is a
non-transport vehicle, there was no statutory requirement to
have specific authorisation on the licence of the driver
under Form 6 under the Rules. It has, therefore, to be held
that Jadhav was holding effective valid licence on the date
of accident to drive light motor vehicle bearing
Registration No. KA-28-567. Accordingly, the appeal is
allowed. Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission is set aside and that of the State Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission restored though on different
ground. Appellant would be entitled to costs.