Commercial Vehicle Qualifying As 'Light Motor Vehicle' U/S 2(21) MV Act Doesn't Require Driver To Have “Transport” Endorsement: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has exempted a commercial vehicle owner from indemnifying its insurer for the compensation paid to a road accident victim on the ground that there was no breach of policy condition merely because the driver did not have license having the ‘Transport’ endorsement. It noted that the concerned vehicle was below 7500 kgs and therefore, a light motor vehicle for...
The Gauhati High Court has exempted a commercial vehicle owner from indemnifying its insurer for the compensation paid to a road accident victim on the ground that there was no breach of policy condition merely because the driver did not have license having the ‘Transport’ endorsement. It noted that the concerned vehicle was below 7500 kgs and therefore, a light motor vehicle for which separate ‘Transport’ endorsement is not required.
The single judge bench of Justice Parthiv Jyoti Saikia observed:
“From the Insurance Policy, it is found that the concerned vehicle i.e. 407 TATA Vehicle is below 7500 kilograms and therefore, it is a light motor vehicle within the definition of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, separate “Transport” endorsement is not required for driving such a vehicle.”
On August 17, 2012, there was an accident involving a 407 TATA Vehicle. In that accident, one person died. The Motor Vehicles Claim Tribunal (MACT) awarded a compensation of ₹6,73,000/- to be paid by the Insurance Company of the vehicle.
The MACT held that the driver of the said Vehicle did not have driving licence having the “Transport” endorsement. The Tribunal further held that the aforesaid fact is a violation of policy condition and therefore, gave the liberty to the Insurance Company to proceed further for recovery of the compensation amount from the registered owner of the vehicle.
The Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the endorsement “Transport” is not a requirement for a person driving a commercial vehicle, which comes within the definition of light commercial vehicle as defined under Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Kumar Sood v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2018) 3 SCC 697.
The Court opined that the said vehicle was a light motor vehicle within the definition of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act and hence, separate “Transport” endorsement is not required for driving such a vehicle.
“…this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has erred while giving liberty to the Insurance Company to proceed further for recovery of the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle. That part of the judgment of the Tribunal dated 27.01.2017 passed in MAC Case No.1/2013 by MACT, Sivasagar stands modified. The Insurance Company shall not have the liberty to proceed further for recovery of the compensation amount from the owner of the aforesaid vehicle,” the Court held.
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Gau) 88
Case Title: Sri Horen Raj Konwar & Anr. v. Union India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Case no.: CO/11/2019