In FAO-7541-2014 (O&M)-PUNJ HC- When driver is holding licence to drive 'light motor vehicle', he is competent to drive 'transport vehicle' of that category without specific endorsement to drive transport vehicle: P&H HC
Justice Archana Puri [22-09-2022]

Read Order: Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Limited v. Smt.Shashi Upadhyay and others

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh,  September 27, 2022: While dealing with an appeal filed by an insurance company assailing the quantum of compensation granted to family members of a road accident victim, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that when the driver is holding a licence to drive 'light motor vehicle', he is competent to drive 'transport vehicle' of that category without specific endorsement to drive the transport vehicle.

Also, it was held by Justice Archana Puri that if the deceased is having a permanent job and is between the age group of 40 to 50 years, the addition towards future prospects to the income of the deceased, has to be 30%.

The present appeal was filed by Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Limited assailing the Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby, compensation to the extent of Rs.78,46,610/- was granted to the claimants (respondents) on account of the death of Rakesh Upadhyay, in a motor vehicular accident.

Essentially, the claimants' case was that Rakesh Upadhyay who was on a motorcycle, sustained major injuries leading to his death, on account of an accident caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the sixth respondent. The FIR in this case was registered at the instance of the co-worker of the deceased who was on another motorcycle with him.

The driver denied all the allegations levelled against him and the defence of the insurance company was struck off after it failed to pay cost imposed on it while setting aside an order of proceeding ex-parte against it.

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that sufficient evidence was produced by the claimants to establish the factum of the accident and also the fact that the same was a result of rash and negligent driving of the tractor driven by the sixth respondent. 

It was also the case of the claimants that the deceased was working as a supervisor and thus, his salary was to the extent of Rs.5,49,721.50 per annum.

The above-stated claim was not disputed by the counsel for the appellant-insurance company. The Counsel rather challenged the extent of Award, only on account of addition of 30% of the salary of the deceased, towards future prospects, as worked upon by the Tribunal. She submitted in this regard that the addition, on account of future prospects, at the maximum could be only to the extent of 20%.

This argument was held by the Court to be wrong. The Court held that if the deceased was having a permanent job and was between the age group of 40 to 50 years, the addition towards future prospects to the income of the deceased, had to be 30%. 

"Thus, it stands established that Rakesh Upadhyay was a permanent employee of the company and therefore, towards future prospects, 30% of the income had to be taken into consideration. Working upon the same, the learned Tribunal has rightly reached the conclusion, after deduction of income tax, about earnings of the deceased, on an annual basis, to be Rs. 5,28,999/-", the Bench added. 

Next argument of the appellant's counsel was at the relevant time of accident, the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, to drive the tractor trolley, as he was holding a driving licence for 'LMV, MT and Motorcycle' only and there was no endorsement, authorising him to drive a 'transport vehicle'. 

As such, it was submitted that the insurance company be absolved from any liability to pay the awarded amount. Besides the same, it was also submitted that if the liability was held to be joint and several, then the recovery rights be given to the insurance company.

Regarding this argument, the Court, while taking into consideration the relevant case laws, held that when the driver is holding a licence to drive a 'light motor vehicle', is competent to drive a 'transport vehicle' of that category, without specific endorsement to drive the transport vehicle. 

"In the case in hand, the driving licence of respondent No.6-Dilip Ram (who was driver of the offending vehicle) is for 'LMV and MT' and is covered within the same category. So, there was no need for specific endorsement to drive the transport vehicle", the Bench added. 

Thus, the present appeal was dismissed.