The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 30/7/2002 passed by the M.A.C. Tribunal [Aux. II], Junagadh [for short 'the Tribunal'], in Claim Petition No. 154/1993. The Tribunal awarded the compensation amount of Rs.60,000/- to the appellant herein with running interest at the rate of 9% p.a., from the date of said claim petition till realization of the awarded amount. However, the Tribunal directed the respondent nos. 1 and 2 herein being the driver and owner of the vehicle to pay the amount of compensation with interest to the appellant claimant, but the respondent no. 3 United India Insurance Company, which was opponent no. 3 before the Tribunal was exonerated from the liability of paying compensation amount. The original claimant feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award, preferred this appeal. 2. As per the case of the appellant claimant, on 12/9/1992 he was traveling in goods rickshaw No. GJ-11-T-3593 along with his goods namely the fruits. The respondent no. 1 was driving the said rickshaw, which was owned by the respondent no. 2 herein. It is alleged that the respondent no. 1 was driving the rickshaw with excessive speed, rashly and negligently and he lost control over the steering and rickshaw turned turtled and he sustained bodily injuries. The appellant claimant contended that at the time of the accident, he was doing business as fruit vendor and was earning Rs.2,000/- p.m. That at the time of accident he was aged about 50 years. That on account of the serious bodily injuries he had to remain as indoor patient in the hospital and he suffered actual loss of income as well as he sustained pain, shock and suffering. It was further his case that due to injuries he sustained permanent bodily disability affecting his earning capacity. He, thus, claimed in-all Rs.2 lac by way of compensation.
3. The respondent no. 3 Insurance Company filed written statement and resisted claim petition of the appellant claimant and contended that the claimant was not entitled to recover any compensation from the Insurance Company.
4. Before the Tribunal, the appellant claimant was examined. He also examined Dr. Vaishnav as his witness. On behalf of the opponent, no oral evidence was adduced. As stated above, at the end of the trial, considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal assessed the amount of compensation at Rs.60,000/- and directed the respondents – opponent nos. 1 and 2 to pay the amount of compensation and exonerated the respondent – opponent no. 3 Insurance Company.
5. Mr. AR Thakkar, Ld. Advocate for the appellant original claimant, at the outset, submitted that the Tribunal committed serious error in exonerating the Insurance Company on the solitary ground that the driver of the rickshaw was not holding valid driving licence. He submitted that admittedly, the vehicle involved in the accident was light motor vehicle as defined under sub-section [21] of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short 'the Act'] and the vehicle was not heavy vehicle as observed by the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid licence to drive light motor vehicle and as per the definition of 'light motor vehicle' under section 2[21] of the Act, it included even the transport vehicle and other similar vehicles, unladen weight of any of which does not exceed 7500 Kgs. It is submitted that in the instant case, such weight of the rickshaw was hardly 1000 Kgs. Mr. Thakkar relied upon the decision rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Annappa Irappa Nesaria reported in [2008] 3 S.C.C. 464.
6. Mr. Thakkar, Ld. Advocate for the appellant claimant submitted that considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the claimant before the Tribunal, even the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very less and it is, therefore, submitted that the appellant claimant was entitled to just amount of compensation which may be awarded.
7. Mr. Amar Mithani, Ld. Advocate for the respondent – opponent no. 2 owner of the vehicle supported the submissions advanced by Mr. Thakkar, Ld. Advocate for the appellant claimant.
8. However, Ms. Sonal Vyas, Ld. Advocate for the respondent opponent no. 3 Insurance Company supported the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal and submitted that examining and evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company. It is submitted that admittedly the driver of the rickshaw was holding driving licence to drive light motor vehicle, but not any commercial vehicle or goods vehicle. Reliance was placed upon the decision rendered in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir reported in [2008] 8 S.C.C. 253 and submitted that in the said case also the driver of the vehicle was holding the licence to drive non-transport vehicle, but he caused accident while driving transport vehicle and in the said matter, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, allowing the appeal, set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court. It is, therefore, submitted that no interference is warranted in the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.
9. Alternatively, it was submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal cannot be said to be on lower side and the appellant claimant is not entitled to any more amount than what was awarded to him.
10. I have considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, so also I have considered the relevant papers from the paper book supplied in this case. The prime controversy involved in this appeal is about driving licence. There is no dispute that at the time when the accident occurred, the opponent no.
1 driver was driving goods rickshaw. There is also no dispute that the accident occurred on 12/9/1992. There is also no dispute that at the time of accident, the opponent no. 1 – driver was holding licence to drive light motor vehicle.
11. In this respect, considering section 2 [21] of the Act, defining 'the light motor vehicle', it is stated that the light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road roller, the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 Kgs. It transpires that pursuant to the amendment Act No. 54 of 1994, the weight 6000 Kgs., was enhanced to 7500 Kgs. At any rate, in the instant matter, the weight of the vehicle involved in the accident was not either 6000 Kgs., or 7500 Kgs., but much less than that. On behalf of the respondent no. 3 Insurance Company, reliance was placed upon the decision rendered in the case of Roshanben [supra]. However, in the said case, Hon'ble the Apex Court took into consideration the relevant provisions of the Act and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Certain earlier decisions were relied upon including the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v/s. Annappa Irappa Nesaria [supra]. Considering the said Annappa's case, in para. 15 in Roshanben's case, Hon'ble the Apex Court observed that definition of “light motor vehicle” would not include a 'light transport vehicle' and in that case, keeping in view the date on which the accident took place, it was held :
“20. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that 'transport vehicle' has now been substituted for 'medium goods vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle'. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, 'light passenger carriage vehicle' and 'light goods carriage vehicle'. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well”
Now in this respect, considering Annappa's case [supra], the vehicle involved in the accident was matador van. The driver of the said van was holding valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. In the said case, the accident took place on 9/12/1999. Hon'ble the Apex Court took into consideration Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, so also the definition of 'light motor vehicle' defined under section 2[21] of the M.V. Act, 1988 and observed that even a light goods carriage would come within the purview of light motor vehicle. Hon'ble the Apex Court took into consideration Form No. 4 as defined under rule 2[e] of the Rules. Hon'ble the Apex Court further observed that considering the date of accident, said case covered the situation which was prevailing prior to the amendment i.e. prior to 28/3/2001. Ultimately, as observed above, in para. 20 in Annappa's case that the light motor vehicle continued at the relevant point of time to cover both “light passenger carriage vehicle” and “light goods carriage vehicle” and a driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive light goods vehicle as well. It was further observed in para. 21 that the amendments carried out in the Rules having prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law. This Court is of the opinion that considering the date of accident in the instant case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the ratio laid down in Annappa's case [supra] applies to the facts of the instant case since in the instant case the accident occurred at pre- amendment stage i.e. prior to 28/3/2001.
12. In above view of the matter, the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, exonerating the respondent – opponent no. 3 Insurance Company, to that extent it is required to be set aside. However, on behalf of the appellant, it has been stated that the amount awarded by way of compensation to the appellant claimant by the Tribunal is on much lesser side as the claimant had adduced cogent evidence in support of his claim of Rs.2 lac. In that background, I have considered the impugned judgment and award, rendered by the Tribunal, so also the oral and documentary evidence adduced on record before the Tribunal and this Court is of the opinion that the amount awarded by way of compensation to the appellant claimant does not appear to be on lesser side as alleged.
13. In above view of the matter, the instant appeal deserves to be partly allowed.
14. The appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 30/7/2002 passed by the concerned Ld. Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 154/1993 fixing the amount of compensation at Rs.60,000/- with running interest @ 9% p.a., from the date of said petition till the realization of the awarded amount by the appellant claimant is hereby confirmed and upheld. However, the impugned judgment and award exonerating the respondent no. 3 original opponent no. 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., from the liability is hereby set aside and in the result all the 3 respondents – opponents are directed to satisfy the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal jointly and/or severally. There shall be no order as to costs.
(J.C.UPADHYAYA, J.) * Pansala.