HARSEWAK SINGH Vs. LAJO DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal by the owner-cum-driver is on the ground that the Insurance Company was bound to indemnify the owner/insured for the consequences of a motor accident. This right of indemnity was denied on the ground that the driver had driving licence to drive two-wheeler and a heavy transport vehicle but the vehicle involved in the accident at the relevant time was only a light motor vehicle. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contends that there are at least three Courts, namely, Karnataka, Jammu and Kashmir and Himachal Pradesh which have taken a view that possession of licence to drive HTV must be seen as sufficiently qualifying a person to drive a LMV as well and that the mechanism to drive in both the categories of vehicles being the same, the Insurance Company shall be bound to honour the commitment to the insured. The judgments are Srinivasagowda and another v. Sannamma and others,2011 ACC 416; National Insurance Company Limited v. Zeba and others,2010 2 AICJ 419; New India Assurance Company Limited v. Dharmu and others, 2005 ACJ 1149, respectively.

(2.) The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, however, points out that the Supreme Court has in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v, Zaharulnisha and others, 2008 AIR(SC) 2218 held that a driver of scooter holding a heavy motor vehicle licence cannot be said to be duly licensed if he did not have a specific licence to drive a scooter. I have already referred to the judgment of three Courts that dealt with the issue of how the driving mechanism for driving a heavy transport vehicle shall be the same as light motor vehicle of another four-wheeler and therefore the licence was sufficient. The Supreme Court was considering the case of a person driving a scooter, but who held a HTV licence. Driving a two-wheeler requires different skills that has no bearing to drive the four-wheeler. The judgment of the Supreme Court does not therefore apply. Yet another judgment in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another, 2008 AIR(SC) 2266 was a case where driver had a licence to drive three-wheeler, but was driving a delivery van which was a goods carrying vehicle. The transport vehicle that requires a transport vehicle licence is a wholly different situation, for, there is a requirement under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act that a person that drives a transport vehicle would require to have a transport vehicle endorsement to qualify for being duly licensed. This judgment also cannot apply to this case, for, the case was not being considered on the relevant driving skills. The judgment of the Court below is set aside in so far as it casts liability on the owner-driver and the appeal is allowed making the insurer fully liable to indemnify the claimants arising out of the accident.