Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9927-28  OF 2014 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS.1499-1500 OF 2014)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9929-30  OF 2014 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NOS…29128-29129 OF 2014  

(CC NOS.4232-4233 OF 2014)

KULWANT SINGH  & ORS.                     ..... APPELLANTS

VERSUS

ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.   ..... RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J.

1. Delay condoned in SLP (C) No………of 2014 [CC. Nos.4232-

4233 of 2014].

2. Leave granted in all the matters.

3. These  appeals  have  been  preferred  against  common  

judgment  and  Order  dated  5th August,  2011  in  MAC  Appeal  

Nos.70  and  68  of  2011  and  dated  8th March,  2013 in  Review  

Petition Nos.793 and 776 of 2011 respectively of the High Court  

of Delhi at New Delhi.

Page 2

Civil Appeal Nos………./2014 @ SLP (C) No.1499-1500/2014

4. The  question  raised  for  consideration  is  whether  the  

Insurance Company is entitled to recovery rights on the ground of  

breach  of  conditions  of  insurance  policy  when  the  driver  

possesses valid driving licence for driving light vehicle but fails to  

obtain endorsement for driving goods vehicle.

5. The  claim  petition  was  filed  before  the  Motor  Accident  

Claims Tribunal by the dependents of the deceased Rizwan S/o  

Kadir @ Abdul Kadir who died in a road accident on 8th October,  

2005  at  about  05.30  A.M.  while  driving  Tempo  No.HR-G-5234  

which was hit  by a Tempo (Tata-407)  bearing No.DL-1L-D3186.  

The Tribunal held that the death was on account of negligence of  

the driver of the offending Tempo (Tata-407) bearing No.DL-1L-

D3186 and the claimants were entitled to compensation.   The  

vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company and the driver  

was having valid driving licence.  The offending vehicle was ‘light  

goods  vehicle’.   The  Insurance  Company  preferred  an  appeal  

before  the  High  Court  with  the  plea  that  it  was  entitled  to  

recovery  rights  as  the  driving  licence  (Exhibit  R3W1)  was  for  

driving ‘light motor vehicle’.  It could not be equated with ‘light  

goods vehicle’.  The High Court observed :

“Driving licence of the driver was for driving a   light  motor  vehicle.   In  no manner can it  be  said that a light motor vehicle can be equated  with a light goods vehicle.  In this scenario, it is   clear  that  there  was  a  breach  of  the  policy   condition and driver of the vehicle did not have   

2

Page 3

Civil Appeal Nos………./2014 @ SLP (C) No.1499-1500/2014

a valid and effective driving licence at the time   of the accident.  Recovery rights should have  been  granted  by  the  Tribunal  against  the  owner.  The award is modified.  Recovery rights   are  granted  in  favour  of  the  Insurance  Company.”

6. Aggrieved  by  the  Judgment  of  the  High  Court,  the  

appellants-the owners of the vehicle in question have come up  

before this Court.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the High  

Court erred in holding that licence for driving light motor vehicle  

entitled the driver to drive ‘light goods vehicle’.   Reliance has  

been placed on the Judgments of this Court in  S. Iyyapan  vs.  

United India Insurance Company Limited and Another1 and  

National  Insurance  Company  Ltd.  vs. Annappa  Irappa  

Nesaria Alias Nesearagi and Others2 .   Thus, there was no  

breach  of  policy  entitling  the  Insurance  Company  to  recovery  

rights  against  the  owner.   Learned  counsel  for  the  Insurance  

Company supported the view taken by the High Court.   

8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the  

judgments relied upon.

9. We find the judgments relied upon cover the issue in favour  

of the appellants. In Annappa Irappa Nesaria (supra), this  

Court referred to the provisions of Section 2(21) and (23) of the  

1 (2013) 7 SCC 62 2 (2008) 3 SCC 464

3

Page 4

Civil Appeal Nos………./2014 @ SLP (C) No.1499-1500/2014

Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988,  which are  definitions of  ‘light  motor  

vehicle’ and ‘medium goods vehicle’ respectively and the rules  

prescribing the forms for the licence, i.e. Rule 14 and Form No.4.  

It was concluded :

“20. From  what  has  been  noticed  hereinbefore,  it  is  evident  that  “transport   vehicle”  has  now  been  substituted  for   “medium  goods  vehicle”  and  “heavy  goods   vehicle”. The light motor vehicle continued, at   the relevant point of time to cover both “light   passenger carriage vehicle” and “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.”

10. In S. Iyyapan (supra), the question was whether the driver  

who had a licence to drive ‘light motor vehicle’ could drive ‘light  

motor vehicle’ used as a commercial vehicle, without obtaining  

endorsement to drive a commercial vehicle.  It was held that in  

such a case, the Insurance Company could not disown its liability.  

It was observed :

“18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver   was  holding  a  valid  driving  licence  to  drive   light  motor  vehicle.  There  is  no dispute  that   the  motor  vehicle  in  question,  by  which  accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab.   Merely  because  the  driver  did  not  get  any  endorsement  in  the  driving  licence  to  drive   Mahindra  Maxi  Cab,  which  is  a  light  motor   vehicle,  the High Court has committed grave  error of law in holding that the insurer is not   liable to pay compensation because the driver  was  not  holding  the  licence  to  drive  the   commercial  vehicle.  The  impugned  judgment   (Civil  Misc.  Appeal  No.1016  of  2002,  order   

4

Page 5

Civil Appeal Nos………./2014 @ SLP (C) No.1499-1500/2014

dated 31.10.2008 (Mad)  is, therefore, liable to  be set aside.”

No contrary view has been brought to our notice.   

11. Accordingly, we are of the view that there was no breach of  

any condition of insurance policy, in the present case, entitling  

the Insurance Company to recovery rights.

12. Accordingly,  we  allow  these  appeals,  set  aside  the  

impugned order of the High Court and restore that of the Tribunal.  

There will be no order as to costs.

……..…………………………….J. [ V. GOPALA GOWDA ]

.….………………………………..J. NEW DELHI             [ ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ] October 28, 2014

5