OIC LTD Vs. KHUSHBOO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question for determination in this Appeal is whether the deceased driver of the tempo No.DL-IM-1000 (which was a Medium Goods Vehicle) can drive the said vehicle with a licence for a Light Motor Vehicle which he possessed. In other words, whether there was breach of the terms of the policy by the owner of the vehicle (Respondent No.6) by allowing the deceased to drive a Medium Goods Vehicle (MGV) who had a licence to drive LMV and thus, the Appellant Insurance Company could avoid the liability.

(2.) A Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) preferred by Respondents No.1 to 5 was converted into one under Section 163-A of the Act. According to the allegations made in the Claim Petition, on 23.09.2005 at about 5:15 P.M., the deceased Shiv Mangal Pandey while driving vehicle No.DL-IM-1000 was returning from Mawana to Delhi. One Ram Kumar was also present in the vehicle (Tata 1109 weighing 10,500 kg.). When the deceased while driving the earlier said vehicle reached the Delhi Road near Kishan Petrol Pump, a vehicle carrying husk appeared suddenly and tried to overtake their vehicle from the wrong side. The deceased Shiv Mangal Pandey tried to avoid collision with the aforementioned vehicle. In the process, he lost control and collided with the central divider. The vehicle turned turtle. Shiv Mangal Pandey suffered injuries which proved fatal. SHO, Police Station Niwari, District Ghaziabad, U.P. was informed about the accident.

(3.) BOTH the parties do not dispute that the vehicle No.DL-1M-1000 involved in the accident had a gross weight of 10,500 kg. The same is proved by Form No.47 as also through the policy of insurance Ex.R1W1/1 and registration Certificate Ex.R2W2/D which shows that the unladen weight of the vehicle is 10,500 kg. Thus, in view of Sections 2(16), 2(21) and 2(23) of the Act which define Heavy Goods Vehicle, Light Motor Vehicle and Medium Goods Vehicle respectively, the vehicle in question was a Medium Goods Vehicle.