MANOJ KUMAR Vs. SUDARSHANA KUMARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these appeals as also the cross -objections are being disposed of by a common order as common questions of fact and law are involved therein. Besides they arise out of the same accident.

(2.) THESE appeals are directed at the instance of the owner of the offending vehicle, who has been burdened with the liability to pay compensation to the respondents/claimants as assessed under awards of 21.03.2013 rendered in MACP No. 19 of 2011 and in MACP No. RBT 55/12/11 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -II, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant has with force and vigour while relying upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi : (2008) 3 SCC 464 canvassed before this Court that in the face of Form No. IV, which is extracted hereinafter contemplating three categories of vehicles i.e. Light Motor Vehicles, Transport Vehicle and Motor vehicle of the following description and the driving licence held by respondent No. 1 bearing an endorsement of its holder being authorized to drive a "transport vehicle" constituted compliance with the mandate of the prescription envisaged in Form IV. In other words, the learned counsel for the appellant/owner has espoused before this Court that, hence, the non -revelation or non -enunciation in the driving licence held by respondent No. 1 at the relevant time, of its holder being authorized to drive a "heavy goods vehicle" is dispensable as well as inconsequential. As a corollary he contends that the driving licence held by respondent NO. 1 at the relevant time and its marking an endorsement of his being authorized to drive a "transport vehicle" was sufficient and did not debar him to drive a "heavy goods vehicle" as was the category of the offending vehicle. However, the said contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has no succor or strength. The reason which constrains this Court to do so is comprised in the fact of the judgment as relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant when omits to divulge that the category of the vehicle as driven by the driver in the case relied upon was of a category analogous to the one as was being driver by the driver in the instant case, inasmuch, as it fell in the category of a heavy goods vehicle, rather the category of the vehicle as driven by the driver in the case relied upon the learned counsel appearing for the appellant was a Matadoor Van having an unladen weight of 3500 kilograms, hence constituted it to fall in the category of "Light Motor Vehicle", as such, when the offending in the instant case falls in the category of "heavy goods vehicle" the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is inapplicable to the driving licence qua the vehicle at hand. Thereupon the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment relied upon construed that even in the absence of the driver of the offending vehicle in the case aforesaid having a driving licence to drive a "light motor vehicle" without an endorsement in it of his being authorized to drive even a transport vehicle, it did not constitute any breach of the insurance policy. Form IV is extracted hereinbelow: -