2014 JTR(SC) 772
2014 4 ACC 640 ; 2014 ACJ 2873 ; 2014 4 AICJ 74 ; 2015 1 AllMR(SC) 481 ; 2015 1 ApexCJ(SC) 32 ; 2014 6 BomCR(SC) 531 ; 2015 3 CivLJ 476 ; 2014 DNJ 994 ; 2014 4 JBCJ(SC) 429 ; 2015 1 JCR(SC) 94 ; 2015 1 JLJR(SC) 8 ; 2014 12 JT 110 ; 2014 4 LawHerald(SC) 3439 ; 2014 5 LawHerald(SC) 4538 ; 2015 4 MhLJ(SC) 61 ; 2015 MPLJ 1 ; 2015 3 MPLJ 1 ; 2015 1 PLJR(SC) 206 ; 2014 4 RCR(Civ) 977 ; 2015 1 RLR 529 ; 2014 12 Scale 356 ; 2015 2 SCC 186 ; 2015 1 SCC(Civ) 798 ; 2015 1 SCC(Cri) 860 ; 2014 2 UAD 759 ; 2015 3 WBLR 842 ; 2014 4 WLN 160 ; 2014 KHC 4691 ; 2014 8 Supreme 446
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. GOPALA GOWDA, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, JJ.
KULWANT SINGH & ORS. – APPELLANTS
VERSUS
ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9927-28 OF 2014 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.1499-1500 OF 2014) WITH 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
MAIN POINT
A driver having valid licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ is authorised to drive ‘light goods vehicle’ as well. No additional endorsement is required.
Act Referred :MOTOR VEHICLES ACT : S.2(21), S.2(23)
(A) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 2(21) and Section 2(23) provide statutory definitions for light motor vehicle and medium goods vehicle, respectively, while Rule 14 and Form No.4 prescribe the structure and categories of driving licences. In this matter, these provisions are determinative, as they establish that a licence endorsed for a light motor vehicle inherently authorises the holder to operate a light goods vehicle, given that the category of light motor vehicle encompasses both light passenger and light goods carriages. Consequently, the condition precedent in the insurance policy requiring a licence specifically for light goods vehicles is satisfied when the driver possesses a valid licence for light motor vehicles, rendering any restrictive interpretation inconsistent with the scheme of the Act.
(B) The core legal principles elucidated include that a valid driving licence for a light motor vehicle implicitly authorises the driving of a light goods vehicle, and that an insurance policy cannot invoke recovery rights on the basis of a supposed breach where the drivers licence is valid under the Act. The scope of the licence category must be interpreted in alignment with the statutory definitions.
Facts of the case:
The deceased was driving a light goods vehicle (Tempo No.HR-G-5234) when he was involved in a collision with another vehicle. The driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving licence for a light motor vehicle but not an explicit endorsement for goods vehicles. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants, holding the death resulted from negligence. The High Court reversed, deeming a breach of insurance policy condition due to the lack of explicit endorsement, thereby denying recovery rights to the insurer.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the driving licence for a light motor vehicle is sufficient authorisation to drive a light goods vehicle, and there was no breach of the insurance policy condition. The High Courts interpretation was erroneous, as it conflicted with the statutory definitions and prior rulings of this Court.
Issues:
The central issue was whether a driver holding a valid licence for a light motor vehicle, but lacking an endorsement for a goods vehicle, constitutes a breach of the insurance policy, thereby absolving the insurer of liability.
Ratio Decidendi:
A driver in possession of a valid licence authorising the operation of a light motor vehicle is legally entitled to drive a light goods vehicle; consequently, the insurance policys condition requiring a separate goods vehicle endorsement is not breached, and the insurer retains no recovery rights against the owner.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the High Court order is set aside, and the original Tribunal order is restored without any order as to costs.
(A) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 2(21) and Section 2(23) provide statutory definitions for light motor vehicle and medium goods vehicle, respectively, while Rule 14 and Form No.4 prescribe the structure and categories of driving licences. In this matter, these provisions are determinative, as they establish that a licence endorsed for a light motor vehicle inherently authorises the holder to operate a light goods vehicle, given that the category of light motor vehicle encompasses both light passenger and light goods carriages. Consequently, the condition precedent in the insurance policy requiring a licence specifically for light goods vehicles is satisfied when the driver possesses a valid licence for light motor vehicles, rendering any restrictive interpretation inconsistent with the scheme of the Act.
(B) The core legal principles elucidated include that a valid driving licence for a light motor vehicle implicitly authorises the driving of a light goods vehicle, and that an insurance policy cannot invoke recovery rights on the basis of a supposed breach where the drivers licence is valid under the Act. The scope of the licence category must be interpreted in alignment with the statutory definitions.
Facts of the case:
The deceased was driving a light goods vehicle (Tempo No.HR-G-5234) when he was involved in a collision with another vehicle. The driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving licence for a light motor vehicle but not an explicit endorsement for goods vehicles. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants, holding the death resulted from negligence. The High Court reversed, deeming a breach of insurance policy condition due to the lack of explicit endorsement, thereby denying recovery rights to the insurer.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the driving licence for a light motor vehicle is sufficient authorisation to drive a light goods vehicle, and there was no breach of the insurance policy condition. The High Courts interpretation was erroneous, as it conflicted with the statutory definitions and prior rulings of this Court.
Issues:
The central issue was whether a driver holding a valid licence for a light motor vehicle, but lacking an endorsement for a goods vehicle, constitutes a breach of the insurance policy, thereby absolving the insurer of liability.
Ratio Decidendi:
A driver in possession of a valid licence authorising the operation of a light motor vehicle is legally entitled to drive a light goods vehicle; consequently, the insurance policys condition requiring a separate goods vehicle endorsement is not breached, and the insurer retains no recovery rights against the owner.
Result:
The appeals are allowed, the High Court order is set aside, and the original Tribunal order is restored without any order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.
1. Delay condoned in SLP (C) No………of 2014 [CC. Nos.4232-4233 of 2014].
2. Leave granted in all the matters.
3. These appeals have been preferred against common judgment and Order dated 5th August, 2011 in MAC Appeal Nos.70 and 68 of 2011 and dated 8th March, 2013 in Review Petition Nos.793 and 776 of 2011 respectively of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
4. The question raised for consideration is whether the Insurance Company is entitled to recovery rights on the ground of breach of conditions of insurance policy when the driver possesses valid driving licence for driving light vehicle but fails to obtain endorsement for driving goods vehicle.
5. 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 valid driving licence. The offending vehicle was ‘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 ‘light motor vehicle’. It could not be equated with ‘light goods vehicle’. The High Court observed :
“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.”
6. Aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court, the appellants-the owners of the vehicle in question have come up before this Court.
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court erred in holding that licence for driving light motor vehicle entitled the driver to drive ‘light goods vehicle’. Reliance has been placed on the Judgments of this Court in S. Iyyapan vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Another, (2013) 7 SCC 62 and National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria Alias Nesearagi and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 464 . Thus, there was no breach of policy entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights against the owner. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company supported the view taken by the High Court.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the judgments relied upon.
9. We find the judgments relied upon cover the issue in favour of the appellants. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra), this Court referred to the provisions of Section 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 No.4. It was concluded :
“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.”
10. In S. Iyyapan (supra), the question was whether the driver who had a licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ could drive ‘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 Company could not disown its liability. It was observed :
“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 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.1016 of 2002, order dated 31.10.2008 (Mad) is, therefore, liable to be set aside.”
No contrary view has been brought to our notice.
11. Accordingly, we are of the view that there was no breach of any condition of insurance policy, in the present case, entitling the Insurance Company to recovery rights.
12. Accordingly, we allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the Tribunal. There will be no order as to costs.