Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v. Ramjeet And ORS
1
!"# $#%&'&() *
+&#("!,('-+!(%#./!(0 //#,,!("
1#+'-'
!.2##"!($"3#+'
#'/($#("'
!.2##"
//#,,!("
1#+'-'
!. !$!,!($"3#+' #'/($#("'
)4 5 6 7
! "
# $% "
#
&'%( '
%
!
"
# 7 )* + ,* -% .( * ,* / ,* . (0,% . /
,/
2 2.
0 , 2%&
+
/ + + (/ ( 5 1 . / ( * + //+ 5 ". / (+& 6 /5 ". / + ,% %4+, / .74 4)41
((/ ( & + + ,/ ,*
// ( 0 4+ (* % *
+ % (% % ,* ( ,* 3 8 + %,*( +,* 7 , !* /
( . ( % 5 33 9
11+ / ( % %% 3.
0 0,% %(
:4 %(% * + %% (%% %%( ,* / ( , 3 :4 ( ) %( + ; "# :4(
:4
%/
# :4
# :4
# :4 <% (: (
:4 -( (% "# :4+ 4 / + "
# 8
%( ( / ( = 4.
> % :-% .( *
/%
:4++ /
3 / * ( * + +% / /(?> 9@;+ ( ( 0+ / /4+++ ,/% ( 0-% .( * /* ,(*% 5.
- ,,*5%(.%
&1&,//#!,8 *
/ /(?> 9@( /*+%( 0 / %/( %
1. In the reference, the main question involved is whether a driver who is having a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle' and is driving 'transport vehicle' of that class is required additionally to obtain an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle? There is a conflict in the plethora of decisions of this Court. In Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (1999) 6 SCC 620, S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Anr. (2013) 7 SCC 62, Nagashetty v. United India InsuranceCo. Ltd. & Ors. (2001) 8 SCC 56, the view taken by this Court was that when a driver is holding a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle', he is competent to drive a 'transport vehicle' of that category without specific endorsement to drive the transport vehicle; whereas in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal (2008) 1 SCC 696, a view had been taken that before 2001 also, it was necessary for a driver possessing driving licence to
4 drive light motor vehicle to obtain an endorsement to drive transport vehicle of that class; whereas in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesargi & Ors. (2008) 3 SCC 464, a distinction was made in the legal position which existed before 28.3.2001 i.e. the date of amendment of the form and subsequent thereto. It was opined that before 28.3.2001 there was no necessity for the holder of a licence to drive light motor vehicle to obtain an endorsement to drive transport vehicle of that class. He could drive transport vehicle of Light Motor Vehicle category on the basis of holding a licence to drive light motor vehicle. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir & Anr. (2008) 8 SCC 253 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol & Ors. (2009) 11 SCC 356, the view had been taken that a driver holding licence to drive light motor vehicle in order to drive 'transport vehicle' of that class has to obtain a specific endorsement on licence authorizing him to drive a transport vehicle.
36. In our considered opinion Prabhu Lal's (supra) question has not decided correctly. The intendment and definition of the light motor vehicle which was clearly interpreted in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha (supra) in para 10 have not been taken into consideration in the correct perspective. Interpretation of Form 6 was also not correctly made. Even assuming that Ashok Gangadhar Maratha (supra) did not lay down that the driver holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle need not have an endorsement to drive a transport vehicle, but what emerges from the aforesaid discussion made by us it is clear that there is
5 no necessity of such an endorsement for driving a transport vehicle of the category of light motor vehicle, which is not statutorily enjoined or provided for. The intendment of section 3 has also not been correctly appreciated. It has to be read along with Section 10(2)(d) and (e) and those classes of vehicles which are included in a category 10(2) (a) to (j) can be driven by a person without any further specific endorsement to drive a particular vehicle. Thus, the decision in Prabhu Lal (supra) does not lay down correct proposition of law and is hereby overruled. - + ( /%( ,* % 4-% .( * ( / ,/ * + * ( / /* / ( - / :4+ + / / 0 -% ( * ,*(*% "
>&/ / 0,% %(% (%
:4 ,
% ( ,* 3 8 %,*( 2%, /( % ( 0 + * % % %( ,* % 0 % , + +,* 5%( .%
6&1&, *8
6
!
"!
#
?
@5..?.@ 3 00,% (*64 A
. , %* + ) 5( .% 7%/(( ,*3 8 + ,* % + & ,* %* 7 ,* &* (
, , , 1 5 ; / / / % B 6/ ( . / ./B// 0/* B< 4 .
0,% %( ,* +%, ,%% + , - , % 3 8 ( ,*% +,*+%% / *
<
/* (% ( % % % ,*
, % % a) Annual income before the accident Rs.6000 X 12 = Rs.72,000/- b) Loss of future earning per annum (61% of the prior annual income Rs.72,000 X 61/100 = Rs.43,920/- c) Multiplier applicable with reference to age d) Loss of future earnings Rs.43,920 X 18 = Rs.7,90,560/-
7
0 ,*0,%
(
(%'9: :* ;<+ "
#8( / ( % = + ,
* * ( ,*0,%
% * ,* 4-% ( * ( 0,% C ( ( ( (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 06.09.2022 rittu Whether speaking/reasoned:
Yes/No Whether reportable:
Yes/No