JAGDISH KUMAR SOOD versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS on 6 March 2018

[2018] 3 S.C.R. 17

JAGDISH KUMAR SOOD

v.

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ORS

(Civil Appeal No. 240 of 2017)

MARCH 06, 2018

[DIPAK MISRA, CJI, A.M. KHANWILKAR AND

DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended vide Amendment Act54 of 1994 w.e.f. 14.11.1994 and further amendment w.e.f.28/3/2001) – s.2(21) r/w ss. 2(15), 2(48) and 10(2)(d) – Death dueto motor accident – Tribunal awarded compensation but absolvedthe insurer on the ground that the vehicle involved in the accidentwas a Light Goods Vehicle – Tribunal held that in the absence of aspecific authorization to drive a transport vehicle, the liability couldnot be fastened on the insurer – Held: The issue is covered by ajudgment of a three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in MukundDewangan case – Order of the Tribunal absolving the insureraccordingly set aside – The liability shall jointly and severally befastened on the insurer, in addition to the owner and driver.

The husband of third respondent died as a result of anaccident caused by a collision with an offending truck. The Tribunalawarded compensation but absolved the insurer on the groundthat the vehicle involved in the accident was a Light GoodsVehicle. The Tribunal held that in the absence of a specificauthorization to drive a transport vehicle, the liability could notbe fastened on the insurer. The Tribunal directed the insurer topay in the first instance and allowed it to recover the compensationfrom the driver and the owner. High Court did not interfere withthe order of the Tribunal absolving the insurer. Hence the presentappeal by the owner.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD : The issue which arises before the Court is not resintegra and is covered by a judgment of a three Judges of thisCourt in Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance CompanyLimited. The order of the Tribunal absolving the insurer shallaccordingly stand set aside. The liability shall jointly and severally

17

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Abe fastened on the insurer, in addition to the owner and driver.[Paras 4, 6] [19-A-F]

Mukund Dewangan v Oriental Insurance CompanyLimited (2017) 14 SCC 663 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

B

(2017) 14 SCC 663 relied onPara 4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 240of 2017.

From the Judgment and Order dated 04.11.2014 of the High CourtCof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 2556 of 2011 (O&M).

R. K. Kapoor, Ms. Rekha Giri, Rajat Kapoor (for Anis AhmedKhan) Advs for the Appellant.

A. K. De, Ms. Ananya De, Zahid Ali (for Debasis Misra) Advsfor the Respondents.

D

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. The Motor Accident ClaimsTribunal allowed a claim for compensation filed by the third respondent.The claim arose from the death of the husband of the claimant on 4EJanuary 2009 as a result of an accident caused by a collision with anoffending truck. The Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs 4,08,000 togetherwith interest at 6 per cent per annum. In an appeal filed by the thirdrespondent the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs 8,04,000.Interest @ 7.5 per cent per annum was awarded on the enhancedcompensation.F

2. The Tribunal absolved the insurer on the ground that the vehicleinvolved in the accident was a Light Goods Vehicle. The driver had alicence to drive the Light Motor Vehicle. The Tribunal held that in theabsence of a specific authorization to drive a transport vehicle, the liabilitycould not be fastened on the insurer. The Tribunal directed the insurerGto pay in the first instance and allowed it to recover the compensationfrom the driver and the owner. The present appeal has been filed by theowner.

3. The High Court, while enhancing the compensation did notinterfere with the order of the Tribunal absolving the insurer.

H

JAGDISH KUMAR SOOD v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. AND ORS. [DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.]

4. The issue which arises before the Court is not res integra andis covered by a judgment of a three Judges of this Court in MukundDewangan v Oriental Insurance Company Limited[1 ]in which it hasbeen inter aliaheldas follows:

“60.1. “Light motor vehicle” as defined in Section 2(21) of theAct would include a transport vehicle as per the weight prescribedin Section 2(21) read with Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transportvehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motorvehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994.” (Id at page709)

“60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weightof either of which does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motorvehicle and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, “unladenweight” of which does not exceed 7500 kg and holder of a drivinglicence to drive class of “light motor vehicle” as provided in Section10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, thegross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg or a motorcar or tractor or roadroller, the “unladen weight” of which doesnot exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement onthe licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motorvehicle class as enumerated above. A licence issued under Section10(2)(d) continues to be valid after Amendment Act 54 of 1994and 28-3-2001 in the form.” (Id at page 710)

5. Having regard to the above position, the Civil Appeal will haveto be allowed.

6. The appeal is allowed, the order of the Tribunal absolving theinsurer shall accordingly stand set aside. The liability shall jointly andseverally be fastened on the insurer, in addition to the owner and driver.There shall be no order as to costs.

Bibhuti Bhushan Bose

Appeal allowed.

1(2017) 14 SCC 663

A

B

CD

E

F

G

H