The insurance company is not liable for compensation as the driver lacked a valid motorcycle license, necessitating a specific license for each vehicle class.

ORDER :

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th August 2024 passed in FAO-3335-2024 (O&M) by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which, in turn, was preferred against the order dated 31st October 2023 in MACP-155-2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sas Nagar.

3. The undisputed facts are that on 26th November 2019, the deceased, namely, Sajad Abdul Basit, aged 24 years, was travelling along with his friend on a motorcycle to college. Upon reaching Petrol Pump, Marnupur, a motorcycle bearing registration no. HP-10-A-4265 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”), driven by Respondent No. 5 herein , Bhupinder Singh, in a rash and negligent manner coming from the wrong side, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. The deceased was initially taken for treatment to Civil Hospital, Kharar, and thereafter, shifted to PGI, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to the injuries suffered while undergoing treatment.

4. In connection with the same, FIR No.291, dated 28th December 2019, under Sections 279 , 304-A, and 427 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, was registered against the driver (Respondent No.5) of the offending vehicle at Sadar Kharar Police Station.

5. The claimants, being legal representatives of the deceased, filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act'), seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. It was submitted therein that at the time of the incident, the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- per month by providing tuition and was also pursuing MBA from Chandigarh University.

6. The Tribunal, vide its order, held the Appellant - Insurance Company and Respondent No.6, the owner, jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation amount of Rs.30,10,765/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased on a notional basis as Rs.12,000/- per month.

7. Aggrieved thereof, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court on the ground that the Tribunal has incorrectly assessed the monthly income of the deceased and pertinently, that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount since the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid license at the time of the incident. The High Court, vide, the impugned order, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the Tribunal.

8. Dissatisfied, the Appellant - Insurance Company is now before us. The significant point of the challenge is that the Courts below did not take into consideration the fact that driver of the offending vehicle did not have an appropriate license to drive a motorcycle and only possessed a license to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (hereinafter ‘LMV’).

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10. At the outset, we must advert to the statutory scheme of the Act, for a valid license. Section 2(10) defines a 'driving license' as a license issued by the competent authority authorising the holder to drive a vehicle of a specified class. Section 3 necessitates having a driving license and reads as follows:

“3. Necessity for driving licence.— (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab [Subs. by Act 54 of 1994, Se