UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. DHANI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Only question involved in this appeal is whether driver holding a licence to drive motor cycle plus motor car can drive a tractor or not. Tractor bearing No. PB-12-D-9051 was admittedly insured with the appellant. During the validity of the insurance policy, it met with an accident near Ghumarwin after two months of its purchase. Appellant got its damage assessed. Respondent submitted requisite documents but the claim was not settled. Therefore, he sent notice on 24.11.2000. Again on 7.12.2001, he requested the appellant to release the sum of Rs. 59,500 along with interest. When needful was not done, claim in the sum of Rs. 59,500 plus Rs. 50,000 total amounting to Rs. 1,09,500 with interest @ 14% per annum was claimed and for this relief complaint was filed.

(2.) As per provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 motor vehicle is defined under Section 2 (26) and motor cycle is defined under Section 2 (27) thereof. For ready reference, these are extracted hereinbelow :

(3.) Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the respondent stated that keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru and Ors., 2003 1 ACC 611, this is a fit case for upholding the impugned award by dismissal of this appeal. For the reason to be recorded hereinafter, this plea is wholly misconceived. Here the respondent is claiming own damage to the tractor as its owner. He cannot and in fact has not pleaded that he had verified the licence of the driver before employing him to drive the tractor in question. Ratio of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lehru deals with the claim of a third party and not of a case of the present nature where own damage claim to the vehicle is involved. In this view of the matter, there is no merit in the plea urged on behalf of the respondent. We are at a loss to understand as to on what basis while allowing the complaint, District Forum held that the driver was not disqualified to drive the tractor in question because he was having a valid driving licence to drive a motor car. It did not care to examine the definition of 'motor car' extracted above which clearly excluded a tractor. That being the position, learned Counsel for the respondent could not satisfy us as to how the impugned award can be upheld. Accordingly, while allowing this appeal, impugned order is quashed and set aside and as a result of it, Complaint No. 263 of 2002 decided on 29.4.2005 by the District Forum, Bilaspur, Camp at Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, H.P. hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.