Judgment

S.S.Sudharkar, J.

1. This appeal has been filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle involved in the accident against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, by which an award of Rs. 1,00,000/ was made against them.

2. In this case notice of motion was issued to respondent No. 5 only.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

4. The challenge to the award during the arguments was only regarding the liability of the Insurance Company. It is the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the award of the Tribunal is erroneous to the extent that it has absolved the Insurance Company, respondent No. 5 from the liability to pay compensation. The reason for the tribunal holding that the Insurance Company was not liable is that the driving licence of the driver was not issued for driving a transport vehicle. The learned tribunal has relied on the case of Manohar Jamatmal Sindhi and Anr. v. Ranquba and Ors., 1994 A.C.J. 1280. It is held by the High Court of Gujarat in that case that the driver was holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle whereas he was driving a transport vehicle and in the absence of a specific endorsement on the date of accident authorising him to drive as a paid employee a transport vehicle, he was not duly licenced to drive the said vehicle. The tribunal has also relied on the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. K. Subramaniam and Ors., 1991 A.C.J. 625, wherein it has been held that the drivers licence was endorsed after the date of accident authorising him to drive a transport vehicle as a paid employee and, therefore, the driver cannot be said to be holding a valid driving licence to drive the tempo on the date of accident and the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation.

5. For appreciating the point involved in this case, it will be proper to see the provisions regarding driving licence. In the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 1988 Act) the said provision is under Section 10, which is reproduced as under :

"Section 10. Form and contents of licences to drive :-

- (1) Every learners licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

(2) A learners licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be ex pressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes namely : (a) motor cycle without gear;

(b) motor cycle with gear;

(c) Invalid carriage;

(d) light motor vehicle;

(e) medium goods vehicle;

(f) medium passenger motor vehicle;

(g) heavy goods vehicle;

(h) heavy passenger motor vehicle;

(i) road-roller;

(j) motor vehicle of a specified description.

The accident in the present case took place on 2.10.1992. At that time the 1988 Act was prevalent and in the requirement of section 10 of the 1988 Act, there is no mention that a licence should expressly have endorsement that it is issued for driving a transport vehicle. It can be seen that the cases of Manohar Jamatmal Sindhi and Anr. v. Ranquba and Ors. and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. K. Sub ramaniam and Ors., (supra) are with regard to the accident which took place before the 1988 Act came into force, and the prevalent Act on the dates of accident in the said cases was Motor Vehicles Act 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 1959 Act). The relevant provision is under sub-section 2 of Section 8 of the 1939 Act which is reproduced below: "Section 8(2) : A driving licence shall specify whether the holder is entitled to drive as a paid employee and whether he is entitled to drive a transport vehicle and shall further be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely : (a) motor cycle;

(b) Invalid carriage;

(c) light motor vehicle;

(d) medium goods vehicle;

(e) medium passenger motor vehicle;

(ei) heavy goods vehicle;

(eii) heavy passenger motor vehicle;

(f) road-roller;

(g) motor vehicle of a specified description."

The above provisions shows that the driving licence was required to specify that the driver was entitled to drive as a paid employee and whether he was entitled to drive a transport vehicle in addition to the other classes of the vehicles mentioned in the said sub-section.

6 The 1988 Act was further amended in the year 1994. However, that amendment is not of any importance so far as this case is concerned because the accident in this case had taken place before the said amendment.

7. Therefore, not mentioning the category of transport vehicle in the driving licence of the driver cannot lead to a conclusion that on the date of accident in question, the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. The driving licence Ex. R.1 is for HMV with effect from 7.7.1991 and the vehicle involved in this case is a truck which is a heavy motor vehicle, and, therefore, the licence covers the driving of such a vehicle. The said licence cannot, therefore, be said to be not meant for the vehicle which the driver was driving at the time of accident in question. The Tribunal has grossly erred in relying on the authorities which were under the 1939 Act. We, therefore, find that the award of the tribunal so far it exonerates the responsibility of the Insurance Company-respondent No. 5 from the payment of compensation deserves to be set aside and the award shall have to be made against the Insurance Company also.

8. In view of the above reasons this appeal is allowed. The award of the learned tribunal so far as it exonerates the insurance company is set aside and respondent No. 5 shall also be jointly and severally liable along with the appellants to pay the awarded amount to respondents No. 1 to 4.