ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.

( 1 ) AGGRIEVED of the order and decree dated 19. 2. 2003 passed in O. P. No. 227 of 1998 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Khammam, granting compensation of Rs. 2. 00 lakhs for the injuries sustained by the claimant - first respondent herein, the Insurance Company preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal.

( 2 ) FEW facts, that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal, in nutshell, are that on 14. 8. 1997 the respondent-claimant was returning on his cycle to telephone booth and when he reached opposite to Nagabhushanam Hospital, Wyra Road, Khammam, a jeep bearing No. AP-20t-756 came in the opposite direction in high speed in a rash and negligent manner, and dashed against the respondent-claimant and it ran over him as a result of which he sustained crush injuries and other grievous injuries. Therefore, the claimant preferred compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/ -.

( 3 ) THE driver and owner of the jeep were set ex parte and the appellant herein being insurer of the said vehicle filed counter denying the averments of the claim petition and contended that the driver of the jeep was not holding a valid driving licence. Appellant also seeks protection under Sections 147, 149 and 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed as many as three issues. To substantiate his claim, the claimant himself was examined as P. W. I and PW-2 is the doctor who treated him and also exhibited Exs. A. l to A. 10. The appellant company examined R. Ws. l and 2 and also exhibited Exs. B. l to B. 4, on its behalf.

( 5 ) ON appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and also on consideration of the facts and circumstances of case with regard to occurrence of the accident and injuries caused to the claimant, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest at 9% per annum with proportionate costs.

( 6 ) AGGRIEVED of the same, the insurer preferred this appeal.

( 7 ) NOW in this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of RW-2, an official of the RTA Office that the driver of the jeep did not obtain badge from RTA and without the badge, he cannot drive the passenger vehicle and the vehicle driven by the driver is a T-Series transport vehicle and therefore, without complying the conditions, the driver is not competent to drove the same.

( 8 ) ON the other hand, it is the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent - claimant in the absence of any oral evidence on behalf of the driver, owner or the appellant, reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of RW-2 to give a finding that the driver has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and, therefore, the award cannot be interfered with.

( 9 ) IN this background of the facts and circumstances, now let us examine some of the provisions of law, which have a bearing on the subject.

( 10 ) SECTION 2 (9) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, defines "driver" to mean and includes, in relation to a motor vehicle which is drawn by another motor vehicle, the person who acts as a steersman of the drawn vehicle, while Section 2 (10) defines "driving licence" to mean the licence issued by a Competent Authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. Section 2 (21) defines "light motor vehicle" to mean a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motorcar or tractor or road roller unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 KGs. Section 2 (34) defines "public place" as a road, street, way or other place, whether a thoroughfare or not, to which the public have a right of access, and includes any place or stand at which passengers are picked up or set down by a stage carriage. Section 2 (35) defines "public service vehicle" to mean any motor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document