Sant Lal v. Rajesh & ORS.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Arun Mishra
Amitava Roy
Judgment Date: 2017-07-03
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals allowed. The right of the insurer to recover from the owner is set aside. The liability is held to be joint and several of the owner, driver, and insurer. No costs.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Sant Lal

Respondents

Rajesh & ORS.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Vineet Bhagat
• Archana Pathak Dave
• K. G. Bhagat
• M. S. Bakshi
• Neelam Saini

Counsels for Respondents

• Bharat Bhushan
• Archana Pathak Dave
• Ankita Choudhary
• Radhika Sharma

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Civil Appeal filed by the owner (Sant Lal) challenging an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, which had held that a tractor attached to a trolley carrying goods, driven by a person holding a licence only for light motor vehicles (LMV), did not have the required endorsement to drive a transport vehicle and thus breached policy conditions. The High Court affirmed the MACT award. The Supreme Court addressed whether a holder of an LMV licence can drive a tractor attached to a trolley and whether a separate endorsement is required to operate such a transport vehicle. Relying on Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 5826 of 2011) the Court held that a driver licensed to drive an LMV can drive a transport vehicle of LMV class and that there is no necessity for a separate endorsement for such vehicles, as the tractor-trolley in question falls within the LMV category. Consequently, there was no breach of policy conditions. The Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the insurer’s right to recover from the owner, and held the liability to be joint and several among the owner, driver, and insurer, with no costs. The decision aligns with the referenced Mukund Dewangan precedent and clarifies licensing scope under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 3Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 10(2)Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 2(21)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellants contended that the holder of an LMV licence can drive a transport vehicle comprising an LMV-class tractor attached to a trolley carrying goods, and that there was no need for a separate endorsement to authorize driving such a transport vehicle. This perspective challenges the MACT’s conclusion that the driver lacked a valid transport-vehicle licence and that the insurer could recover from the owner.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents argued that the driver did not possess a licence to drive a transport vehicle; consequently, the policy conditions were breached and the insurer should be able to recover the awarded amount from the owner.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.	Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011	Positive	The Court relied on the three-judge bench decision to hold that a licence to drive LMV suffices to drive a transport vehicle of LMV class; no separate endorsement is required, aligning with the present judgment.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2017] 7 S.C.R. 823 A ## SANT LAL v. ## RAJESH & ORS. ETC. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8395-8396of2017) JULY03,2017 B ## [ARUN MISHRA AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] - - _Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ss.3, 10(2), 2(21) Transport_ . _vehicle_ - _Whether a driver who is having a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' (LMV) and is driving 'transport vehicle' of that class is required additionally to obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle_ - _Driver having licence to drive LMV can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement_ - _In the instant case, tractor attached with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle_ - _Therefore, there was no breach of conditions of the policy._ c D ## Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: This Court has considered the question whether the holder of licence for light motor vehicle can drive tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether separate E endorsement is required authorizing him to drive such a transport vehicle and answered in reference in _Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. etc._ (Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011). It was held that driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle · can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached F with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy •. [Paras 3, 4 and 5] [824-D-F] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 83958396 of2017. G From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2013 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 347 & 348 of 2011. Vineet Bhagat, Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, K. G. Bhagat, M. S. Bakshi, Ms. Neelam Saini, Advs. for the Appellants. H 823 824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2017) 7 S.C.R. A Bharat Bhushan, Archana Pathak Dave, Ms. Ankita Choudhary, Ms. Radhika Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by **ARUN MISHRA, J. 1.** Leave granted. B c D 2. The appeals have been preferred by the owner, aggrieved by the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani (for short, "the MACT"). The driver was driving a tractor which was attached to the trolley carrying goods. The MACT held that the same becomes transport vehicle though the driver was having licence to drive motor cycle, scooter, car, jeep arid light motor vehicle. There was no endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. Thus, there was violation of the conditions of the policy. Driver was not having a valid licence to drive transport vehicle. Thus, after making payments to the claimant, right of recovery have been given to the insurer from owner. The award has been affirmed by the High Court. Hence present appeals. 3. This Court has considered the question whether the holder of licence for light motor vehicle can drive tractor attached to the trolley carrying goods and also whether separate endorsement is required authorizing him to drive such a transport vehicle? 4. We have answered the question that driver having licence to E drive light motor vehicle can drive such a transport vehicle of LMV class and there is no necessity to obtain separate endorsement, since tractor attached with the trolley was transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle. Hence, there was no breach of the conditions of the policy. F G 5. Accordingly, in view of the answer given to reference by the three Judge Bench of this Court in _Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. etc._ (Civil Appeal No.5826 of 2011), these appeals have to be allowed and are hereby allowed. The right given to the insurer to recover amount from owner is hereby set aside. The liability is held to be joint and several of owner, driver and insurer. No costs. Appeals allowed. Devika Gujral