KUMAR MINOR Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in all these appeals is the owner of the lorry involved in the accident. On 23.7.1987, the lorry was carrying steel rods and some employees of the appellant. The 6th respondent in L.P.A.No.4 of 1999, who has since been given up, was the driver. He drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner when he took a turn, which resulted in the death of four employees, who travelled in the lorry and injury to another. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased, making the insurer and the insured liable to pay the compensation. On appeal, the learned single Judge absolved the insurance company from liability to pay compensation and, therefore, the owner of the lorry has filed the present appeal.

(2.) The principal contention advanced for the owner is that the driver of the vehicle, the vehicle admittedly being a lorry, was in possession of a licence which permitted him to drive heavy passenger vehicles and, therefore, the driver should be regarded as having possessed a licence to drive the lorry as well. Reliance is placed on the definitions of 'heavy goods vehicle' and 'heavy passenger motor vehicle' as found in Sections 2 (9) and 2 (9-A), respectively, of the Vehicles Act, 1939. "Heavy goods vehicle" is defined to mean any goods vehicle, the registered laden weight of which, or a tractor the unladen weight of which exceeds 11,000 kilograms. "Heavy passenger motor vehicle" is defined to mean any public service vehicle or omnibus the registered laden weight of either of which, or a motor car the unladen weight of which exceeds 11,000 kilograms. It was submitted that as these two vehicles are equally weighty, the ability to drive one would necessarily imply the ability to drive the other. The driver, therefore, according to the submission, is to be regarded as competent to drive the heavy goods vehicle as also the heavy passenger motor vehicle and the fact that the licence did not specify heavy goods vehicle as one of the vehicles which the driver was licensed to drive should not make a difference.

(3.) The argument so advanced is only superficially attractive. The scheme of the Act leaves no manner of doubt that the driving licence which is a pre-requisite for driving a motor vehicle in any public place is the driving licence issued in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 'Driving Licence' is defined in Section 2 (5-A) as meaning, "the document issued by a competent authority under Chapter II, authorising the person specified therein to drive a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description". Section 3 of the Act imposes an embargo on any person driving a motor vehicle in any public place "unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to himself authorising him to drive the vehicle". That Section further provides that "no person shall so drive a motor vehicle as a paid employee or shall so drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so".