NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. JAMNA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) This appeal is against the award dated 6.10.1998 by which the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nohar allowed the claim petition of the claimants and held the appellant insurance company liable to reimburse the awarded amount.

(3.) The appellant insurance company preferred this appeal raising only dispute about the validity of the licence of the driver. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the driver of the vehicle at the relevant point of time was driving the heavy goods vehicle and he had no driving licence to drive the said vehicle. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, if the licence of the driver which was produced by the driver is taken to be valid then that licence was issued to ply the heavy passenger vehicle only. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the accident occurred on 17.10.1993 before coming into force of the amendment of the certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, which came into force on 14.11.1994. In the year 1993 as per clauses (g) and (h) of sub-section (2) of section 10, separate licences were required to be issued for the vehicle of the category of heavy goods vehicle and heavy passenger motor vehicle. According to learned counsel for appellant, as per the condition of the policy in case, the vehicle is handed over to a person, who had no valid driving licence of the category of the vehicle mentioned in the Act or the Rules, the insurance company cannot be held liable to reimburse the insured. The learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of Madras High Court delivered in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Petchi Muthu Asari, 2000 ACJ 1378 (Madras), wherein Madras High Court held that driver having licence to drive a heavy passenger vehicle, cannot drive a heavy goods vehicle. The same view was taken by the Karnataka High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Dhanalakshmi, 1998 ACJ 715 (Karnataka). Learned counsel for appellant further submits that mere possessing a valid driving licence is not sufficient, but the driver must also possess the driving licence of the category of the vehicle which he found driving to make insurance company liable. It is vehemently submitted that when the law has divided the licence in separate categories and section 10 requires for obtaining the licence of a particular category then holding a licence of one category cannot be deemed to be a valid driving licence for the other category of the vehicle for which the authorities have not issued licence in favour of the driver.