MUKUND DEWANGAN v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

p. 812 Copy page pinpoint

A 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 B 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 c met with an accident 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 6. In view of necessary documents on record, the Insurance Company was right in submitting that Ashok D Gangadhar does not apply to the case on hand and the Insurance Company was not liable." s

36Copy pinpoint36. In our considered opinion Prabhu Lal (supra) question has not decided correctly. The intendment and definition of the light motor vehicle which was clearly interpreted in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha E (supra) in para 10 have not been taken into consideration in the correct perspective. Interpretation ofForm 6 was also not correctly made. Even assuming that Ashok Gangadhar Maratha (supra) did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, but what emerges from the aforesaid discussion made by us it is clear that there is no necessity of such an endorsement for driving a transport vehicle of the category oflight motor vehicle, which is not statutorily enjoined or provided for. The intendment of section 3 has also not been correctly appreciated. It has to be read along with Section l 0(2)( d) and ( e) and those classes of vehicles which are included in a category l 0(2) (a) to (j) can be driven by a person without any further specific endorsement to drive a particular vehicle. Thus, the decision in Prabhu Lal (supra) does not lay down correct proposition oflaw and is hereby overruled.

37Copy pinpoint37. In New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 253 the driver was the holder of a licence to drive a three-wheeler. This Court noted that the licence

p. 813 Copy page pinpoint

COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

was not meant to be used to drive a transport vehicle. The vehicle involved was an autorickshaw delivery van and was a goods carrier. It was contended that the driver was not the holder of a legal and valid licence. This Court came to the conclusion that since the licence was issued or renewed for a period of20 years from the date of issuance or renewal, the driver was not holding the licence to drive a transport vehicle as transport licence is not issued for such duration. The decision in the aforesaid case also cannot hold the field in the light of the law discussed in the instant matters and as the driver driving such a vehicle i.e. three- wheeler was holding the licence to drive a light motor vehicle, the restricted duration of renewal would not be applicable to the light transport vehicle. The discussion to the contrary in Roshan Lal (supra) cannot c hold the field.

38Copy pinpoint38. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra), a Division Bench of this Court has considered the question with respect to an accident which took place on 9.12.1999. The driver was driving a Matador van, a "goods carriage" vehicle, holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle. This · D Court referred to Forms 4 and 6 and Rules 14 and 16 of the Rules of 1989 and opined that as Form 4 has been amended w.e.f. 28.3.2001, transport vehicle has been substituted for medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle and provision in the form at the relevant time, covered both "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle". The driver who had a valid driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle (transport vehicle) as well. The view taken with respect to the pre-amended position, before the amendment of Form 4 on 28.3.2001 appears to be correct for the reasons discussed by us. However, no change has been brought about by insertion of Form 4 after 28.3.2001 with respect to LMV category transport vehicle, thus, Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra) cannot be taken to be laying down correct legal position applicable after 28.3.2001. With respect to the post-amendment legal position, the decision cannot be said to be laying down the correct law. However, this Court has rightly opined in the aforesaid case that the person holding a licence to drive "light motor vehicle" could have driven "light passenger carriage vehicle" and "light goods carriage vehicle" also. Thus, the decision is partially overruled to the aforesaid extent only.

39Copy pinpoint39. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 356, this Court has considered the decisions in Annappa Irappa H

p. 814 Copy page pinpoint

A Nesaria (supra) and Prabhu Lal (supra). The accident took place on

31. I 0.2004. A mini dor auto dashed against the insured. The question arose whether the driver was not having an effective driving licence to drive "goods carriage vehicle" since he was holding the licence to drive the motorcycle and light motor vehicle. It was granted for a period of20 years and as such this Court presumed that it was meant for the purpose B of driving a vehicle other than a transport vehicle. This Court has observed thus: "21. 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. Had the driving licence c been granted for a transport vehicle, the tenure thereof could not have exceeded to three years." This Court observed that for grant oflicence to drive a transport vehicle, provision in Section I 0(2)( e) became effective from 28.3.200 I, that is, the date on which form was amended and held that the vehicle was a "goods vehicle" as such the driver did not hold a valid driving licence for a "goods vehicle". The legal position cannot be said to have been correctly appreciated in Angad Kol s case (supra), for the reasons discussed by us, as the vehicle was of light motor vehicle class. Thus, the decision is required to be overruled as the vehicle which was driven was the light motor vehicle, though, it was goods carriage vehicle i.e. transport vehicle.

40Copy pinpoint40. In S. Iyyapan (supra), this Court has considered the decisions in Ashok Gangadhar (supra), Annappa Jrappa Nesaria (supra) as well as Prabhu Lal (supra) and has laid down thus: F "18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed G the grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment (Civil Misc. Appeal No. I 016 of 2002, order dated 31.l 0.2008 (Mad)) is, therefore, liable to be set aside." H

p. 815 Copy page pinpoint

COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

This Court has rightly held in S. lyyapan (supra) that it was not A necessary for the driver to get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab as he was authorized to drive a light motor vehicle.

41Copy pinpoint41. In Ku/want Singh v. Orienta/ Insurance Co. Ltd. (2015) 2 SCC 186, this Court has referred to the decisions in S. lyyapan (supra) B and Annappa Jrappa Nesaria (supra) and has laid down that once the driver is holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive commercial vehicle of that category. In Ku/want Singh (supra) it has been laid down thus: "8. We find that the judgments relied upon cover the issue in c favour of the Appellants. In Annappa Jrappa Nesaria (2008) 3 SCC 464, this Court referred to the provisions of Sections 2(21) and (23) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which are definitions of "light motor vehicle" and "medium goods vehicle" respectively and the Rules prescribing the forms for the licence i.e. Rule 14 and Form 4. It was concluded: (SCC p. 468, para 20) D "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 E vehicle'. A driver who hada valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well."

9. In S. Iyyapan (2013) 7 SCC 62, the question was whether the driver who had a licence to drive "light motor vehicle" could drive F "light motor vehicle" used as a commercial vehicle, without obtaining endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle. It was held that in such a case, the insurance Co. could not disown its liability. It was observed: (SCC p. 77, para 18) "18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a G valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High H

p. 816 Copy page pinpoint

A Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment [Civil Misc. Appeal No. I 016 of2002, order dated 31-10-2008 (Mad)] is, therefore, liable to be set aside." B

10. No contrary view has been brought to our notice.

11. Accordingly, we are of the view that there was no breach ofany condition ofinsurance policy, in the present case, entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights." c Though, as held above, and for the reasons assigned by us, the conclusion in Ku/want Singh (supra) was correct, however for the post- amended position after 28.3.2001 also the law continues to be the same for LMV class of vehicles.

42Copy pinpoint42. In Nagashetty (supra), the vehicle involved was a tractor which was used for carrying goods. The goods were carried in a trailer attached to it. It was held that ifa driver was holding an effective licence to drive a tractor, he could validly drive the tractor attached to a trailer. The contention that it was a transport vehicle, as the tractor was attached to a trailer and as such the driver was not holding a valid licence, was rejected. This Court has laid down thus: "9. Relying on these definitions, Mr. S.C. Sharda submitted that admittedly the trailer was filled with stones. He submitted that once a trailer was attached to the tractor the tractor became a transport vehicle as it was used for carriage of goods. He submitted that Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for grant of licences to drive specific types of vehicles. He submitted that the driver only had a licence to drive a tractor. He submitted that the driver did not have a licence to drive a transport vehicle. He submitted that therefore it could not be said that the driver had an effective and valid driving licence to drive a goods carriage or a G transport vehicle. He submitted that thus the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive the type of vehicle he was driving. He submitted that as the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, the Insurance Co. could not be made liable. He submitted that the High Court was right in so holding. H

p. 817 Copy page pinpoint

COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

10. We are unable to accept the submissions of Mr. S.C. Sharda. A It is an admitted fact that the driver had a valid and effective licence to drive a tractor. Undoubtedly Under Section 10, a licence is granted to drive specific categories of motor vehicles. The question is whether merely because a trailer was attached to the tractor and the tractor was used for carrying goods, the licence to B drive a tractor becomes ineffective. If the argument of Mr. S.C. Sharda is to be accepted, then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that c vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle by itself does not make that tractor or motor vehicle a transport vehicle. The tractor or motor vehicle remains a tractor or motor vehicle. If a person has a valid driving licence to drive a tractor or a motor vehicle, he continues to have a valid licence to drive that tractor or motor vehicle even if a trailer is attached to it and some goods are carried in it. In other words, a person having a valid driving licence to drive a particular category of vehicle does not become disabled to drive that vehicle merely because a trailer is added to that vehicle.

11. In this case, we find that the Insurance Company when issuing the insurance policy, had also so understood. The insurance policy has been issued for a tractor. In this insurance policy, an additional premium of Rs. 12 has been taken for a trailer. Therefore the insurance policy covers not just the tractor but also a trailer attached to the tractor. The insurance policy provides as follows for the F "persons or classes of persons entitled to drive": 'Persons or classes ofpersons entitled to drive -Any person including insured provided that the person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence: G Provided also that the 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 ofRule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, limitations as to use.' H

p. 818 Copy page pinpoint

A 12. The policy is for a tractor. The "effective driving licence" is thus for a tractor. The restriction on a learner driving the tractor when used for transporting goods shows that the policy itself contemplates that the tractor could be used for carriage of goods. The tractor by itself could not carry goods. The goods would be carried in a trailer attached to it. That is why the extra premium B for a trailer. The restriction placed on a person holding a learner's licence i.e. not to drive when goods are being carried is not there for a permanent licence-holder. Thus a permanent licence-holder having an effective/valid licence to drive a tractor can drive even when the tractor is used for carrying goods. When the policy c itself so permits, the High Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that a person having a valid driving licence to drive a tractor would become disqualified to drive the tractor if a trailer was attached to it."

43Copy pinpoint43. Section 10(2) (a) to (j) lays down the classes of vehicles to be driven not a specific kind of motor vehicles in that class. If a vehicle falls into any of the categories, a licence holder holding licence to drive the class of vehicle can drive all vehicles of that particular class. No separate endorsement is to be obtained nor provided, ifthe vehicle falls in any of the particular classes of section I 0(2). This Court has rightly observed in Nagashetty (supra) that in case submission to the contrary is accepted, then every time an owner of a private car, who has a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, attaches a roof carrier to his car or a trailer to his car and carries goods thereon, the light motor vehicle would become a transport vehicle and the owner would be deemed to have no licence to drive that vehicle. It would lead to absurd results. Merely because a F trailer is added either to a tractor or to a motor vehicle it by itself does not mean that driver ceased to have valid driving licence. In our considered opinion, even if such a vehicle is treated as transport vehicle of the light motor vehicle class, legal position would not change and driver would still have a valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle oflight motor vehicle class, whether it is a transport vehicle or a private car/tractor G attached with trolley or used for carrying goods in the form of transport vehicle. The ultimate conclusion in Nagashetty (supra) is correct, however, for the reasons as explained by us.

44Copy pinpoint44. In Natwar Parikh & Co. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 364, this Court was concerned with the taxation under the H

p. 819 Copy page pinpoint

COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.]

Karnataka Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1957 and question arose whether the tractor along with trailer for transporting goods was to constitute distinct category of goods carrier which requires permission under Section 2(14) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1957 and absence thereof would render . it liable to tax under Section 3(2). This court held that the tractor when attached with the trailer carrying goods, would become a transport vehicle for the purpose of taxation. This Court has discussed the question thus: "Section 2(28) is a comprehensive definition of the words "motor vehicle". Although a "trailer" is separately defined in Section 2( 46) to mean any vehicle drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle, it is still included in the definition of the words "motor vehicle" under Section 2(28). Similarly, the word "tractor" is c defined in Section 2(44) to mean a motor vehicle which is not itselfconstructed to carry any load. Therefore, the words "motor vehicle" have been defined in the comprehensive sense by the legislature. Therefore, we have to read the words "motor vehicle" in the broadest possible sense keeping in mind that the Act has D been enacted in order to keep control over motor vehicles, transport vehicles, etc. A combined reading of the aforestated definitions under Section 2, reproduced hereinabove, shows that the definition of "motor vehicle" includes any mechanically propelled vehicle apt for use upon roads irrespective of the source of power and it includes a trailer. Therefore, even though a trailer is drawn by a E motor vehicle, it by itself is a motor vehicle, the tractor-trailer would constitute a "goods carriage" under Section 2(14) and consequently, a "transp011 vehicle" under Section 2(47). The test to be applied in such a case is whether the vehicle is proposed to be used for transporting goods from one place to another. When a F vehicle is so altered or prepared that it becomes apt for use for transporting goods, it can be stated that it is adapted for the carriage of goods. Applying the above test, we are of the view that the tractor-trailer in the present case falls under Section 2( 14) as a "goods carriage" and consequently, it falls under the definition of "transport vehicle" under Section 2(47) of the MV Act, 1988." G There is no dispute with the aforesaid proposition, that tractor if drawing a trailer with goods would constitute goods carrier and . consequently would be a transport vehicle. The aforesaid discussion was with respect to taxation and not with respect to the competence of H

p. 820 Copy page pinpoint

A driver holding light motor vehicle licence to drive the tractor attached with trailer/trolley carrying goods. The driver had the competence to drive such a vehicle, tractor with a trailer carrying goods being oflight motor vehicle category transport vehicle which is the question involved in the instant case. Therefore, the decision renders no help with the cause espoused by the insurer. B

45Copy pinpoint45. Transport vehicle has been defined in section 2(47) of the Act, to mean a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle. Public service vehicle has been defined in section 2(35) to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward and includes c a maxicab, a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage carriage. Goods carriage which is also a transport vehicle is defined in section 2(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted for use solely for the carriage of goods, or any motor vehicle not so constructed or adapted when used for the carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted that a D person holding licence to drive light motor vehicle registered for private use, who is driving a similar vehicle which is registered or insured, for the purpose of carrying passengers for hire or reward, would not require an endorsement as to drive a transport vehicle, as the same is not contemplated by the provisions of the Act. It was also rightly contended that there are several vehicles which can be used for private use as well E as for carrying passengers for hire or reward. When a driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he can drive it irrespective of the fact whether it is used for a private purpose or for purpose of hire or reward or for carrying the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is intended by the provision of the Act, and the Amendment Act 5411994.

46Copy pinpoint46. 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 different kinds 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 G also, a holder oflight motor vehicle licence can drive all the vehicles of the class including transport vehicles. It was pre-amended position as well 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 provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8 of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and also the forms which H

p. 821 Copy page pinpoint

COMPANY LIMITED [ARUN MISHRA, J.)

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 light 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 I 0(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 we have discussed. Thus we answer the questions which are referred to us thus: (i) 'Light motor vehicle' as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section C 2(21) read with section 2( 15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 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 D and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 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 onmibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road-roller, the E "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 oflight motor vehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under section 10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54/ 1994 and 28.3.2001 in the form. F (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 vehicle" in section 10(2)(e ), medium passenger motor vehicle in section l 0(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger motor vehicle" in section 10(2)(h) with expression 'transport vehicle' as substituted in section G 10(2)( e) related 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 H

p. 822 Copy page pinpoint

A 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 to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class B without any endorsement to that effect.

47Copy pinpoint47. In the light of aforesaid answer; let matters be placed for hearing on merits before the appropriate Bench.

c Dcvika Gujral Reference answered.