The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently held that a driver holding a license to drive a 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' is legally competent to drive a 'Passenger Service Vehicle' since both fall under the unified category of 'Transport Vehicle' after the 1994 amendment to the Act (National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Naresh Kumar & Ors.)
Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani observed that the classification under Section 10(2)(e) of the Motor Vehicle Act does not require a separate endorsement for each type of commercial vehicle. The Court noted that since 1994, the legislature has removed the sub-classifications and mandated that a license for a “transport vehicle” would be sufficient for both goods and passenger categories.
"Any person who was holding a driving license authorizes him to drive a particular type of commercial vehicle would automatically be eligible to drive any other type of commercial vehicle, meaning thereby that a driver holding a driving license to drive a heavy goods vehicle would be competent to drive a passenger carrying vehicle," the High Court said.
It was hearing an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Ltd. challenging a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) award passed on February 6, 2014.
The insurer had contested the award primarily on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle, Subash Chander, held a license to drive only 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' and lacked the requisite Passenger Service Vehicle (PSV) endorsement required to drive a passenger vehicle.
The insurance company also contended that the 7.5% interest rate was excessive.
The counsel for the insurance company relied on a previous High Court judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Bashir Ahmed Chopan & Ors to argue that the driver was not competent to drive the passenger vehicle without a specific PSV (Passenger Service Vehicle) endorsement on his license.
He further argued that the MACT erred in closing the appellant's evidence without summoning the witnesses for whom diet expenses had already been deposited.
The Court undertook a detailed interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
It began by examining the definitions under Section 2 of the Act and observed that both heavy goods vehicles and passenger service vehicles fall under the broader category of 'transport vehicle' and therefore, are not to be treated as separate licensing classes post the 1994 amendment to the Act.
Referring to Section 10(2)(e) of the Act, which governs issuance of licenses, the Court emphasised that the amendment effective from November 14, 1994 replaced specific classes such as HGV (Heavy Goods Vehicle) and PSV (Passenger Service Vehicle) with a single category 'transport vehicle'.
Thus, a license issued under this category after the amendment authorizes the holder to drive both goods and passenger-carrying commercial vehicles.
The High Court rejected the appellant’s reliance on the Bashir Ahmed Chopan case, terming its ratio per incuriam as it failed to consider the binding legal position and amendments.
Instead, the Court relied on a Division Bench ruling in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohd. Sadiq Kuchay and Ors., which categorically held that PSV endorsements are not mandatory under J&K Motor Vehicle Rules when the driver holds a valid transport vehicle license.
Reagrding argument on excessive interest, the Court noted that the MACT’s award of 7.5% interest per annum did not appear unreasonable or arbitrary in the given context.
On the issue of procedural lapse concerning the appellant’s witnesses, the Court held that no injustice or denial of hearing was apparent on record, and the MACT’s actions were within its discretionary domain based on the conduct of parties during proceedings.
Accordingly, the appeal was held devoid of merit and dismissed.
The Court ordered that the compensation amount, already deposited by the insurance company in compliance with an earlier interim order on March 26, 2014, be released to the claimants in accordance with the award passed by the MACT.
Advocates Dinesh Singh Chauhan and Damini Singh Chauhan appeared for the appellants.
[Read Order]