Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, Feb 22 : In a significant judgment, High Court today held that a light motor vehicle licence holder is authorized to ply a heavy vehicle without any separate approval.
Justice D S Thakur in a motor accident appeal has held that a person possessing a light motor vehicle licence would also be authorized to ply a transport vehicle without any separate endorsement provided the gross vehicle weight of the said transport vehicle does not exceed 7500 kgms.
Court while dealing with a case in hand said, the gross vehicle weight of the Tipper (offending vehicle) was 16,200/- kgms and therefore, a light motor vehicle licence would not authorize the driver to ply the vehicle in question without a specific endorsement from the licensing authority to ply the vehicle in question in that regard.
The verification report does suggest that the licence did authorize the driver to ply a heavy goods vehicle, yet admittedly the endorsement by the licensing authority came much after the date of the accident as such it, thus, becomes clear that on the date when the accident took place, the driver of the vehicle was only authorized to ply a light motor vehicle and not a transport vehicle like a Tipper, which is a offending vehicle in the present case whose gross laden weight exceeded 7500 kgms
The second issue which the court dealt was whether the insurance company is not liable in view of the fact the vehicle in question was being driven without any route permit on the date of the accident. It is the admitted case of the parties that on the date of the accident, the vehicle in question was not having the route permit issued from the registering authority.
It appears that the registering authority much after the date of the accident, by imposing a penalty, gave retrospective route permit registration to the vehicle in question. The Tribunal court said, had placed reliance upon that document to say that the vehicle was properly registered and therefore, there was no violation either the terms and conditions of the policy or the Motor Vehicles Act.
Court said the law prohibits an owner of the motor vehicle to use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place except in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or counter signed by Regional or a State Transport Authority, authorizing the use of such a vehicle.
There was no route permit issued by the registering authority on the date of the accident and in terms of Section 81, the route permit in the present case which the court said, granted only from the date of its issuance and could not have been granted retrospectively as it would fly in the face of Section 81, therefore, the finding recorded by the Tribunal on this aspect is untenable in law.
Court after having considered the entire matter, opined that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment in terms of the Award in favour of the claimants. However, applying the principle of ‘pay and recover’ the insurance company is directed to pay the awarded amount to the claimants with liberty to recover the same from the owner/driver.
The instant appeal was filed by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as compensation to the next kins of the family whose son died in a vehicular accident caused due to the alleged rash and negligent driving.
The insurance company claimed before the Tribunal violation of the policy conditions by the owner and driver while plying the vehicle in question and without a valid driving licence and without any route permit issued from the registering authority and on that ground the company was aggrieved of the award passed by the Tribunal.
Follow our WhatsApp channel