This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award in M.V.O.P.No.504 of 2006 dated 12-01-2009 on the file of the District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam to the extent the award fastening the liability on it.

2. The first respondent is the Claimant in O.P.No.504 of 2006 and the second respondent (owner of the offending vehicle – motorcycle No.AP 30 E 3915).

3. On 04-06-2006 the first respondent herein (Claimant in O.P.) was proceeding on his scooter bearing No.AP 31 M 4116 from the Government Hospital, Srikakulam. A motorcycle bearing registration No. AP 30 E 3915 belonging to the second respondent herein driven by one Yarabati Chandrasekhara Rao came in the opposite direction and dashed against the scooter. On account of the said incident, the Claimant sustained multiple injuries and the scooter was also badly damaged. He, therefore, filed the O.P. and sought for a compensation of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-. The second respondent (owner of the vehicle) remained ex parte. The appellant – Insurance Company contested the claim mainly on the ground that the driver of the offending motorcycle did not have the required licence to drive motorcycle, as such, the conditions of the insurance policy were violated, thus, be exonerated from the liability. The Tribunal formulated necessary issues whether the first respondent suffered injuries on account of the rash and negligent driving of a motorcycle, or whether the accident was due to his own negligence and whether the first respondent was entitled to compensation and if so, to what amount and from whom.

4. The Claimant examined himself as PW-1 and got examined the Doctors as PWs.2 and 3. Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked on his behalf. The appellant – insurance company examined its legal executive as RW-1 and also got examined Senior Assistant of R.T.A., Srikakulam as RW-2. Exs.B-1 to B-10 were marked on its behalf. In addition, Exs.C-1 to C-3 were also marked through the Advocate.

5. The Tribunal on consideration of evidence on record held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the motorcycle. It was also held that the first respondent was entitled for a sum of Rs.95,000/- towards compensation. As regards liability, the Tribunal although noticed that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed only a light motor vehicle driving licence, it did not accept the contention of the appellant – Insurance Company that the said licence cannot be considered as an effective licence to drive the motorcycle and, therefore, held that the appellant – insurance company is also jointly and severally liable. That is how this appeal has been filed.

6. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties.

7. Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess effective licence as required under the provisions of Section 10 r/w. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter in short referred to as ‘the Act’ for the purpose of convenience) to drive the motorcycle. He would submit that the offending vehicle was a Hero Honda motorcycle with gears. He would further submit that in order to drive a motorcycle with gears specific authorization is required, notwithstanding the driver possessed light motor vehicle driving licence. He would submit that the appellant – insurance company was established by adducing evidence that the driver of the motorcycle had no such licence, therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability.

8. Learned counsel Sri A. Rama Rao appearing for the first respondent, however, would contend that the light motor vehicle driving licence is enough and a separate licence to drive a motorcycle is not required. He would submit that the driving licence Ex.B-7 does not show that it prevents the driving of a motorcycle. The motorcycle is a light vehicle, therefore, the light motor vehicle dr