JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, namely, Manohar Rathore owned a vehicle being run as a taxi and insured with the petitioner company. The said vehicle met with an accident resulting in death of its driver. A claim for compensation on account of damage caused to the vehicle was submitted by the deceased Manohar Rathore which was repudiated by the insurer vide its letter dated 12.11.2013 which to the extent, it is relevant reads as under:-

“On scrutiny of the driving license it is observed that the driver of the subject vehicle is holding driving license to drive Motor Cycle and LMV (NT) only where as the subject vehicle is LMV Transport(Ordinary taxi) hence the driver is not holding valid and effective driving license to drive the subject vehicle. It is a violation of  "driver's clause" of the policy and Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules,  1989.”

2.      Being aggrieved from the repudiation of the claim, the respondents approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company primarily on the ground that licence which had been issued to the driver of the vehicle authorised him to drive light motor vehicle but not a transport vehicle.

3.      The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint, the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal also having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.

4.      The question involved in this petition is as to whether a person holding a driving licence authorising him to drive a Light Motor Vehicle  is competent to drive a transport vehicle having laden weight not more than 7500 kg or not. This question came up for consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2017) 14 SCC 663, decided on 03.07.2017 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court concluded as under:-

“60.1. “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 with Sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the definition of the light motor vehicle by virtue of Amendment Act 54 of 1994.

60.2. A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which  4does not exceed 7500 kg would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a roadroller, “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 of 1994 and 28-3-2001 in the form.

60.3. The effect of the amendment made by virtue of Act 54 of 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.

60.4. 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.”

(Emphasis supplied)

5.      The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide its order dated 3.5.2018 passed in Civil Appeal No. 841 of 2018  - M/s. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi & Ors., the Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred the issue to a larger Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court and, therefore, this revision petition should be admitted till the larger Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court takes a view on the reference made to it.

6.      After the above-referred reference to this question came up for consideration of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.3322 of 2019 – M.S. Bhati Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.  and again relying upon the decision in Mukund Dewangan (Supra), the Hon’ble Supreme court maintained the view which it had taken in Mukund Dewangan (Supra). The attention of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was drawn to the reference made to the larger Bench in Rambha Devi & Ors. (Supra). But the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in para S12 of its decision, observed that the law which had been laid down in Mukund Dewangan (Supra) binds it  and as a matter of judicial discipline, it is bound to follow that decision which continues to hold the field. Since the Hon’ble Supreme Court having noted  the reference to the larger Bench, decided to follow the view it had taken in Mukund Dewangan (Supra), it is not open to this Commission to adopt a contrary approach and admit the revision petition and keep it pending. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mukund Dewangan (Supra) and M.S. Bhati (Supra).