NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD , BRANCH SANGLI, DIST SANGLI, THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, HIRALAL S/O NAMDEO VISPUTE Vs. KAMALBAI WD/O WACHISTA KOTULE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the Appellant, Ms S. K. Doke, learned counsel for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 - Claimants and Mr. A. R. Syed, holding for Mr. S. P. Brahme, learned counsel for Respondent No.7 - owner.

(2.) The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 8th March, 2004 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), Beed.

(3.) Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for Appellant - Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal has committed an error apparent on face of record in misreading or in any case, misinterpreting the provisions of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (said Act), which defines the expression "light motor vehicle". He submits that in the present case, there is no dispute whatsoever that the offending vehicle was a transport vehicle as defined under Section 2(47) of the said Act. He, therefore, submits that in terms of Section 2(21) of the said Act, unless the gross vehicle weight were not to exceed 7500 kilograms, only such a vehicle can be said as light motor vehicle. He points out that, in the present case, the gross vehicle weight of the offending vehicle was 16200 kilograms as per the R.C. book, which has been produced on record and admitted in evidence. He submits that in case of a transport vehicle, the issue of unladen weight, which is what the Tribunal has taken into consideration, is quite irrelevant. For this reason, he submits that there is an error apparent on face of record in the impugned judgment and award in treating the offending vehicle as light motor vehicle.