# Ravindra Pal Yadav v. Smt. Badami Devi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 278
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-27
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 719 of 2000
- **Bench:** Arvind Kumar Mishra-I
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravindra-pal-yadav-v-smt-badami-devi-ors-45045
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Driving
Licence - Validity and effectiveness -
Driving
licence
does
not
lose
its
effectiveness merely on ground that the
vehicle in question though registered for
commercial purpose was being used at the
time of the accident for private purpose -
validity of the driving licence cannot be
doubted even in the absence of any
particular or special endorsement made on
it as that requirement is not legal one -
Finding recorded by the Tribunal is on the
face perverse, erroneous - Held, the driver
of the offending vehicle was duly licensed.

First Appeal From Order allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
after the findings are received from the
court of first instance. We find the same
view taken in Gopi Nath Shukul v. Sat
Narain Shukul (AIR 1923 All 384)."

18. In view of above, this court is of the
view that the judgment and order passed by the
appellate court is liable to be modified to the
extent that the trial court after getting the correct
map prepared record its findings on the issues
and the reasons therefor and send the same to
the appellate court so that the appellate court
may decide the appeal on merit. It would also be
appropriate because the Regular Suit is of the
year 1987 and Regular Civil Appeal of the year
1993. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed
and the judgment and order dated 17.10.2001
passed in Regular Civil Appeal No.57 of 1993
stands modified to the extent indicated above
with the following directions:-

1. The learned Trial Court, after
receiving record shall call report of the
commissioner with the correct map of the
spot and thereafter after recording its
findings
and
reasons
therefor
in
accordance with law as directed by the
appellate court, shall send the record
alongwith its findings and the reasons
therefor
to
the
appellate
court
expeditiously and preferably within a
period of three months from the date of
receipt of the record.

2. After receipt of the findings
and reasons therefor from the trial court
alongwith the record, the appellate court
shall decide the Regular Civil Appeal
No.57 of 1993 in accordance with law on
merit expeditiously and preferably within
a period of three months from the date of
receipt from the trial court.

19. The appeal is, accordingly,
partly
allowed
with
the
aforesaid
directions. No order as to costs.

20. The lower Court record shall be
remitted to the concerned trial court forthwith.
----------
(2020)1ILR 278

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARVIND KUMAR MISHRA-I, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 719 of 2000

Ravindra Pal Yadav ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Badami Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri I.N. Singh, Sri Ajay Yadav, Sri Arvind
Kumar Srivastava, Sri Ram Bilas Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.A. Khan, Sri A.K. Srivastava, Sri
Ashok Kumar Singh, Sri Gaurav Singh

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Driving
Licence - Validity and effectiveness -
Driving
licence
does
not
lose
its
effectiveness merely on ground that the
vehicle in question though registered for
commercial purpose was being used at the
time of the accident for private purpose -
validity of the driving licence cannot be
doubted even in the absence of any
particular or special endorsement made on
it as that requirement is not legal one -
Finding recorded by the Tribunal is on the
face perverse, erroneous - Held, the driver
of the offending vehicle was duly licensed.

First Appeal From Order allowed. (E-1)

List of cases cited: -

1. Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Ltd. 2017 (14) SCC 663

2. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt.
Shashi Prabha Sharma and others AIR 2015
Allahabad 167 Full Bench Allahabad High Court
1 All. Ravindra Pal Yadav Vs. Smt. Badami Devi & Ors.
279
(Delivered by Hon'ble Arvind Kumar
Mishra-I, J.)

1.

Heard
Sri
Arvind
Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel for the ownerappellant, Sri Ashok Kumar Singh and Sri
Gaurav Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent no.6 and perused the material
brought on record.

2. By way of the instant appeal,
challenge has been made to the award and
order dated 16.02.2000 passed by IIIrd
Additional District & Sessions Judge,
Gorakhpur / Motor Accidents Claim
Tribunal, in Motor Accident Claim Case
No.71 of 1996 Smt. Badami Devi and
others Vs. Ravindra Pal Yadav and others,
whereby liability to pay compensation to
the tune of Rs.1,49,000/- has been saddled
with the owner-appellant.

3. Brief reference of the relevant
facts of the case as discernible from the
certified copy of the impugned award
appears to be that the accident in question
was caused on 12.01.1996 at 9:00 p.m. on
the tri-crossing of Village Futhawa Inar,
Police Station Chauri Chaura, District
Gorakhpur by rash and negligent driving
of Maruti Van U.P.53 E 1575 by its drive
whereby he dashed the same with Ram
Dulare Chauhan, aged 40 years, the
deceased due to which he sustained injury
and on account of which he died. The
matter was reported at Police Station
Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur.

4. The claimants-respondents moved
claim
petition
claiming
overall
compensation amount under various heads
to the tune of Rs.11,80,000/-. The
Insurance Company also contested the
claim petition by filing written statement
and on the basis of the same, the Tribunal
framed as many as 9 issues regarding
factum of the accident and various other
counts as per respective pleadings of the
parties. It also took note of the documents
filed on record which have been elaborated
and discussed in the impugned award
dated 16.02.2000 (passed by the Tribunal)
and after recording finding on various
issues, the Tribunal allowed the claim
petition and in its operative portion, it
directed
payment
/
realization
of
Rs.1,49,000/- along with 12% interest as
the overall compensation which amount
was directed to be distributed among the
claimant-respondents,
in
various
proportion.

5. Consequently, this appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the ownerappellant has submitted that the liability to
pay compensation has been wrongly
saddled with the owner appellant on the
ground that the offending vehicle, Maruti
Van U.P.53 E 1575 was registered for
commercial purpose, however, it was
being plied, at the time of accident in
question, for private purpose on account of
which the Insurance Company claimed
immunity branding the aforesaid act of the
owner plying the vehicle in question to be
in violation of the terms and conditions of
the Insurance Policy, which finding on the
face is perverse, erroneous and not
sustainable in view of the fact that in case
any light motor vehicle is plied for
whatsoever purpose - say - private or
commercial by a duly licensed driver then
it need not bear any particular / special
endorsement on the driving licence of the
driver as such that licence is meant for
commercial purpose and the Insurance
Company cannot claim immunity on that
count, because the vehicle in question is
admittedly motor vehicle for which a
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
licence issued for driving a light motor
vehicle will be a valid and effective
driving licence.

7. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the appellant has
placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Mukund
Dewangan
Vs.
Oriental
Insurance
Company Ltd. 2017 (14) SCC 663,
particularly on paragraph nos. 45 and 46
which are extracted herein below:

45. Transport vehicle has been
defined in section 2 (47) of the Act, to
mean a public service vehicle, a goods
carriage, an educational institution bus or a
private service vehicle. Public service
vehicle has been defined in section 2 (35)
to mean any motor vehicle used or adapted
to be used for the carriage of passengers
for hire or reward and includes a maxicab,
a motor cab, contract carriage, and stage
carriage. Goods carriage which is also a
transport vehicle is defined in section 2
(14) to mean a motor vehicle constructed
or adapted for use solely for the carriage of
goods, or any motor vehicle not so
constructed or adapted when used for the
carriage of goods. It was rightly submitted
that a person holding licence to drive light
motor vehicle registered for private use,
who is driving a similar vehicle which is
registered or insured, for the purpose of
carrying passengers for hire or reward,
would not require an endorsement as to
drive a transport vehicle, as the same is not
contemplated by the provisions of the Act.
It was also rightly contended that there are
several vehicles which can be used for
private use as well as for carrying
passengers for hire or reward. When a
driver is authorised to drive a vehicle, he
can drive it irrespective of the fact whether
it is used for a private purpose or for
purpose of hire or reward or for carrying
the goods in the said vehicle. It is what is
intended by the provision of the Act, and
the Amendment Act 54/1994.

46. Section 10 of the Act
requires a driver to hold a licence with
respect to the class of vehicles and not
with respect to the type of vehicles. In one
class of vehicles, there may be different
kinds of vehicles. If they fall in the same
class of vehicles, no separate endorsement
is required to drive such vehicles. As light
motor vehicle includes transport vehicle
also, a holder of light motor vehicle
licence can drive all the vehicles of the
class including transport vehicles. It was
pre-amended position as well the postamended position of Form 4 as amended
on 28.3.2001. Any other interpretation
would be repugnant to the definition of
"light motor vehicle" in section 2 (21) and
the provisions of section 10(2)(d), Rule 8
of the Rules of 1989, other provisions and
also the forms which are in tune with the
provisions. Even otherwise the forms
never
intended
to
exclude
transport
vehicles from the category of ''light motor
vehicles' and for light motor vehicle, the
validity period of such licence hold good
and apply for the transport vehicle of such
class also and the expression in section
10(2)(e) of the Act ''Transport Vehicle'
would include medium goods vehicle,
medium passenger motor vehicle, heavy
goods vehicle, heavy passenger motor
vehicle which earlier found place in
section 10(2)(e) to

(h)
and
our
conclusion
is
fortified by the syllabus and rules which
we have discussed. Thus we answer the
questions which are referred to us thus:

(i) ''Light motor vehicle' as
defined in section 2(21) of the Act would
include a transport vehicle as per the
weight prescribed in section 2(21) read
1 All. Ravindra Pal Yadav Vs. Smt. Badami Devi & Ors.
281
with section 2(15) and 2 (48). Such
transport vehicles are not excluded from
the definition of the light motor vehicle by
virtue of Amendment Act No.54/1994.

(ii) A transport vehicle and
omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either
of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would
be a light motor vehicle and also motor car
or tractor or a road roller, ''unladen weight'
of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and
holder of a driving licence to drive class of
"light motor vehicle" as provided in
section 10(2)(d) is competent to drive a
transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross
vehicle weight of which does not exceed
7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or roadroller, the "unladen weight" of which does
not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no
separate endorsement on the licence is
required to drive a transport vehicle of
light motor vehicle class as enumerated
above. A licence issued under section
10(2)(d) continues to be valid after
Amendment Act 54/1994 and 28.3.2001 in
the form.

(iii) The effect of the amendment
made by virtue of Act No.54/1994 w.e.f.
14.11.1994 while substituting clauses (e)
to (h) of section 10(2) which contained
"medium
goods
vehicle"
in
section
10(2)(e), medium passenger motor vehicle
in section 10(2)(f), heavy goods vehicle in
section 10(2)(g) and "heavy passenger
motor vehicle" in section 10(2)(h) with
expression
''transport
vehicle'
as
substituted in section 10(2)(e) related only
to the aforesaid substituted classes only. It
does not exclude transport vehicle, from
the purview of section 10(2)(d) and section
2(41) of the Act i.e. light motor vehicle.

(iv) The effect of amendment of
Form 4 by insertion of "transport vehicle"
is related only to the categories which
were substituted in the year 1994 and the
procedure to obtain driving licence for
transport vehicle of class of "light motor
vehicle" continues to be the same as it was
and has not been changed and there is no
requirement
to
obtain
separate
endorsement to drive transport vehicle,
and if a driver is holding licence to drive
light motor vehicle, he can drive transport
vehicle
of
such
class
without
any
endorsement to that effect.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the
claimant-respondents
has
has
placed
reliance on the decision of the Full Bench
of this Court in the case of United India
Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shashi
Prabha Sharma and others AIR 2015
Allahabad 167 Full Bench Allahabad
High Court and claimed that on the basis
of the aforesaid citation, ratio is fixed in
such cases like the present one, liability
though
may be
fastened
upon
the
Insurance Company to pay the amount of
compensation initially on it but the same
may be directed to be recovered from the
owner of the offending vehicle.

9. Considered the rival submissions
and gone through the impugned award
passed by the Tribunal.

10. In this case, no cross objection
has
been
filed
by
the
claimantrespondents. Finding on issue no.8 though
it has been wrongly mentioned as finding
on issue no.7, however both the parties
agreed that it be treated as finding on the
point of validity and effectiveness of the
driving licence as issue no.8. The Tribunal
after analyzing various aspects both legal
as well as factual was of the opinion that
the vehicle in question Maruti Van U.P.53
E 1575 primarily registered as commercial
vehicle. However, it was being driven by a
person though holding licence for driving
the light motor vehicle but without any
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
endorsement (on the licence) driving
commercial vehicle would be violative of
the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy and would amount to not driving
such vehicle with valid and effective
driving licence.

11. The point raised on behalf of the
owner-appellant relates to fact that in view
of the clear cut mandate of the Hon'ble
Apex Court herein quoted above also
fortifies claim of the owner-appellant that
driving licence to drive the light motor
vehicle will not lose its effectiveness
merely on ground that the vehicle in
question though registered for commercial
purpose was being used at the time of the
accident for private purpose and the point
to be seen in such case is rooted to core
consideration whether the nature of the
vehicle permits the holder of the driving
licence for driving light motor vehicle or
not and that point works categorical in
favour of the owner in the context.

12. In this case, validity of the
driving licence cannot be doubted even in
the absence of any particular or special
endorsement
made
on
it
as
that
requirement is not legal one. The claim
raised on behalf of the owner-appellant is
sustained in view of the categorical finding
recorded by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Mukund Dewangan (supra).
Similarly, finding recorded in relation to
the validity of the driving licence on issue
no.8 by the Tribunal is on the face
perverse, erroneous and the same is hereby
set aside and it is held that the driver of the
offending vehicle Maruti Van U.P.53 E
1575 was duly licensed on 12.01.1996 at
9:00 p.m. when the accident occurred on
the tri-crossing of Village Futhawa Inar,
Police Station Chauri Chaura, District
Gorakhpur.

13. Insofar as overall amount
awarded under facts and circumstances of
the case as compensation amount to the
tune of Rs.1,49,000/- is concerned, the
same cannot be said to be either excessive
or unreasonable, the same is justified,
therefore,
operative
portion
of
the
impugned award passed by the Tribunal
dated 16.02.2000 along with 12% interest
is hereby sustained. The entire amount of
the compensation shall be paid by the
insurer of the offending vehicle i.e.
respondent no.6, Oriental Insurance Co.
Ltd.
instead
of
the
owner-appellant
Ravindra Pal Yadav.

14. Accordingly, this appeal is
allowed in terms aforesaid.
----------
(2020)1ILR 282

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.12.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 758 of 2016

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Renu & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ramesh Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Deepali Srivastava, Sri Ram Singh, Sri
Sanjay Kumar Tripathi, Sri Amit Kumar
Sinha

A. Motor Accident Act, 1988 - Driving
licence - Validity - Tribunal found the
offending vehicle was light goods motor
vehicle - Tribunal further found that in