Full Text
Translation output
R E P O R T A B L E
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8395-8396 OF 2017
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.35534-35535 of 2013)
SANT LAL …APPELLANT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8395-8396 OF 2017
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.35534-35535 of 2013)
SANT LAL …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
RAJESH & ORS. ETC. …RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
ARUN MISHRA, J.
Leave granted.
The appeals have been preferred by the owner, aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, “the MACT”). The driver was driving a tractor which was attached to the trolley carrying goods. The MACT held that the same becomes transport vehicle though the driver was having licence to drive motor cycle, scooter, car, jeep and light motor vehicle. There was no endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. Thus, there was violation of the conditions of the policy. Driver was not having a valid licence to drive transport vehicle. Thus, after making payments to the claimant, right of recovery have been given to the insurer from owner.
The award has been affirmed by the High Court. Hence present appeals.
The appeals have been preferred by the owner, aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, “the MACT”). The driver was driving a tractor which was attached to the trolley carrying goods. The MACT held that the same becomes transport vehicle though the driver was having licence to drive motor cycle, scooter, car, jeep and light motor vehicle. There was no endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. Thus, there was violation of the conditions of the policy. Driver was not having a valid licence to drive transport vehicle. Thus, after making payments to the claimant, right of recovery have been given to the insurer from owner.
The award has been affirmed by the High Court. Hence present appeals.
This Court has considered the question whether the holder of licence for light motor vehicle can drive tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether separate endorsement is required authorizing him to drive such a transport vehicle?
We have answered the question that driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy.
Accordingly, in view of the answer given to reference by the three
Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. (Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011), these appeals have to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The right given to the insurer to recover amount from owner is hereby set aside. The liability is held to be joint and several of owner, driver and insurer. No costs.
……………………..…J.
(ARUN MISHRA)
……………………..…J.
(AMITAVA ROY)
JULY 3, 2017
NEW DELHI
We have answered the question that driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy.
Accordingly, in view of the answer given to reference by the three
Judge Bench of this Court in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental
Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. (Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011), these appeals have to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The right given to the insurer to recover amount from owner is hereby set aside. The liability is held to be joint and several of owner, driver and insurer. No costs.
……………………..…J.
(ARUN MISHRA)
……………………..…J.
(AMITAVA ROY)
JULY 3, 2017
NEW DELHI
REVISED
ITEM NO.1503 COURT NO.11 SECTION IV-B
(for Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal Nos.8395-8396 of 2017
@Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(C)No(s).35534-35535/2013
SANT LAL Petitioner(s)
ITEM NO.1503 COURT NO.11 SECTION IV-B
(for Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal Nos.8395-8396 of 2017
@Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal(C)No(s).35534-35535/2013
SANT LAL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RAJESH AND ORS ETC Respondent(s)
Date : 03-07-2017 These matters were called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR
Mr. Vineet Bhagat, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Bharat Bhushan, AOR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra pronounced the judgment of the
Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
(B.PARVATHI) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR
Mr. Vineet Bhagat, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Bharat Bhushan, AOR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Mishra pronounced the judgment of the
Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitava Roy.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
(B.PARVATHI) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
ITEM NO.1503 COURT NO.11 SECTION IV-B
(for Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)No(s).35534-35535/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-08-2013 in FAO No. 347/2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh)
SANT LAL Petitioner(s)
(for Judgment)
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C)No(s).35534-35535/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 02-08-2013 in FAO No. 347/2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at
Chandigarh)
SANT LAL Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RAJESH AND ORS ETC Respondent(s)
(HEARD BY : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
AMITAVA ROY)
(HEARD BY : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE
AMITAVA ROY)
Date : 03-07-2017 These matters were called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR
Mr. Vineet Bhagat, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Bharat Bhushan, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
(B.PARVATHI) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
For Petitioner(s) Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, AOR
Mr. Vineet Bhagat, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Bharat Bhushan, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.
(B.PARVATHI) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)