LexASHOK GANGADHAR MARATHA versus ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A ASHOK GANGADHAR MARA THA v. ORIENT AL INSURANCE CO. LTD. SEPTEMBER 2, 1999 B [S. 'S-AGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. WADHWA JJ.] Motor Vehicle Act, 1988-Sections 2, 3, 66, 77, 78 and 79-Liability ., of insurer-Effective licence-ukfK.~t Motor Vehicle-Such a vehicle, even though designed to be used as a goofis carrier or transport vehicle, remained C a light motor vehicle and not a light goods vehicle or a transport vehicle in view of Section 66-Driver of the Light Motor Vehicle neither having a permit for a goods ca"iage nor carrying any goods on the date of acddent- Insurer neither pleaded nor produced ihat the vehicle in question was having a permit for goods carriage-Held, licence to drive light Motor Vehicle D issued in Form 6 was an effective and valid licence to drive such a vehicle-- Insurer cannot escape liability alleging breach of policy by insured-Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989-Rule 16 Form 6. E Words and Phrases-"Effective driving licence"~Meaning of in the context of Section 3 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. "Light Motor Vehicle"-Meaning of in the context of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, Rule 2(h) and Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 2 (21). Appellant was owner of a registered truck, a light Motor vehicle. The vehicle was insured with the respondent for a certain amount and for a F certain period. The said vehicle was weighing less than the maximuni limit . prescribed in Section 2(21) of Motor Vehicles Act 1988. Within the period of insurance, the vehicle met with an accident and got completely datnaged. The respondent refused to honour the claim of the appellant under the insurance policy. Appellant approached the consumer redressal forum. The G State Commission allowed the claim of the appellant Aggrieved by the order respondent filed an appeal before the National Commission. The National Commission accepted the contentions of the respondent that the vehicle in question was a goods carriage and thus a transport vehicle and driver of such vehi~le was not authorised to drive a transport vehicle. It, therefore, held that the appellant having committed breach of the terms of insurance policy and H 202 •' A.G. MARA THA v. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. 203 the provisions of the Act, the respondent was not liable to indemnify the A appellant. Hence this appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. For a vehicle to be a transport vehicle, it must be a goods carriage which in turn means any motor vehicle constructed or adapted for B use solely for the carriage of goods or when not so constructed or adapted used for the carriage of goods. The Motor Vehicle Act contains definition of"heavy goods vehicle" and "medium goods vehicle" but there is no definition of "light goods vehicle". Instead the definition is of "light motor vehicle". If the definition of a "light motor vehicle" as given in Section 2 (21) of the C Act is applied to mean a "transport vehicle" which in turn means a "goods carriage" then one would find nowhere the definition of a "light motor vehicle" without it being a "goods carriage". Section 2 of the Act begins with the words "unless in this Act the context otherwise requires". Therefore, one has to give a meaningful interpretation to "light motor vehicle" as given in clause (21). Rule 2(e) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 defines D "non-transport vehicle" to mean a motor vehicle which is not a transport vehicle (clause (e) renumbered as clause (h) by 1993 Amendment to Rules). This definition would, therefore, take out of the definition of "transport vehicle" as given in clause (21) light motor vehicles which are not goods carriage. (207-D-E] 2. There is no evidence on record and no claim has either been made by the respondent that the vehicle in question was having a permit for goods carriage. If the contention of the respondent is accepted, there can never be any light motor vehicle and there can never be any driving licence for driving E a light motor vehicle. Such a construction on Section 2 (21) of the Actso F as to exclude a light motor vehicle from the Act altogether cannot be put forth. Light motor vehicle is a motor vehicle to drive for which driver possessed effective driving licence. His driving licence was valid on the date of accident. [208-D-E] Moreover, on the date of accident, the vehicle was not carrying any G goods, and though it could be said to have been designed to be used as a transport vehicle or g
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.