LexNATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus ANNAPPA IRAPPA NESARIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 1061 A NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. 'p-- ..... \I. ANNAPPA IRAPPA NESARIA AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 574 of 2008) B JANUARY 22, 2008 [S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] ~ Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 -- r. 14 -- Form 4 -- 'Ii Driving licence -- Validity of -- Matador Van having 'goods c carriage' permit met with accident in 1999 resulting in death of a person -- Contention raised by insurance company that driver of the offending vehicle did not possess effective driving licence since he only had a licence to drive a light motor vehicle -- Tenability of - Held: Not tenable - Prior to D amendment carried out in Form 4 w.e.f. 23-8-2001, a "light motor vehicle" covered both 'light passenger carriage vehicle' .. and 'light goods carriage vehicle', hence, person holding ... licence to drive a light motor vehicle was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well - Since the said amendment had E prospective operation, licence held by driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in law - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988- ss.2(21), 2(16) and 2(23). A Matador Van having a 'Goods Carriage' permit met with an accident resulting in death of the wife of F Respondent No.1. The incident occurred in 1999. "(.~ Appellant-insurance company raised contention that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess an effective licence to drive the same since he only had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle. It is the G contention of Appellant that for the purpose of grant of licence for driving a vehicle, an application has to be filed in Form No.4, whereafter only a licence is granted in Form No.6; that the said Forms have been prescribed in terms of Rules 14 and 16 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, H 1061 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. ANNAPPA 1062 !RAPPA NESARIAAND ORS.,. ,._ -1 1989 and that in view thereof, a 'light motor vehicle' does A not answer the description of a 'transport vehicle'. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The word 'Form' has been defined in Rule 2(e) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 to mean a B Form appended to the rules. Rule 14 prescribes for filing ~ of an application in Form 4, for a licence to drive a motor vehicle, categorizing the same in nine types of vehicles. Clause (e) in Form 4 provides for 'Transport vehicle' which has been substituted by G.S.R. 221 (E) with effect from c 28.3.2001. [Paras 13, 14) [1066-H; 1067-EJ 1.2. Before the said amendment in 2001, the entries 'medium goods vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle' existed which have been substituted by 'transport vehicle'. 'Light Motor Vehicles' also found place therein. 'Light Motor D -t Vehicle' is defined in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles 4 Act, 1988 and, therefore, in view of the provision, as then existed, it included a light transport vehicle. The "light motor vehicle" thus continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, 'light passenger carriage vehicle' and E '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. The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective ,,. >- operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in F question cannot be said to be invalid in law. [Paras 14, 15, 16, 17) [1067-E-G; 1068-D-E] Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (1999 ) (6) SCC 620- referred to. CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 574 G " of 2008. From the final Judgment and Order dated 14.7.2003 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in M.F.A. No. 7788/ 2002 (MV) H A B c D E F G H 1063 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 1 S.C.R. Atul Nanda, Rameeza Hakeem, Rajesh Kumar, P.N. Puri, Parmanand Gaur, Neha Gaur, Vishnu Mehra and B.K. Satija for the Appellant. J.P. Dhanda, Raj Rani Dhanda, Dr. Sushil Balwada, S.N. Bhat, Neeraj Kumar Jain, Bharat Singh, Sanjay Singh, Sandeep Chaturvedi, Ugra Shankar Prasad, Rajesh Tyagi, Dr. Aparna Bhardwaj, Atishi Dipankar and Ashwani Kumar for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by . S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted . 2. Appellant - National Insurance Company is before us, aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 14th July, 2003, passed by a learned Single Judge of the Karnaraka High Court in M.F.A. No. 7788/2002 dismissing the appeal
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.