A driver holding a license to drive a light motor vehicle can drive a transport vehicle of the same class without any separate endorsement, as per the settled legal position.

JUDGMENT :

DUPPALA VENKATA RAMANA, J.

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”) by the appellant-M/s.National Insurance Company against the Award and Decree dated 29.09.2005 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), East Godavari, Rajahmundry, (for short “the Tribunal”), in M.V.O.P.No. 659 of 2001 granting compensation of Rs.50,000/- with proportionate costs and with interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the petition till realization, against the respondents.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal in the claim petition.

3. The factual context of the case, is as under:

(a) On 30.04.2001, while the petitioner/injured being the driver of the Van bearing No. AP 37 T 3033 along with cleaner and additional driver were proceeding to Chelluru from Ramachandrapuram, and when they reached Pasalapudi centre, and in the process of overtaking another vehicle, the petitioner/injured lost his control over the Van and turned towards the road side canal, as a result, the Van turned turtle into the road side canal due to which, the petitioner received grievous injuries and lost his teeth.

(b) The matter was reported to the Police alleging that the accident took place as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Van and based on the report given by his colleague namely K.Ganapathirao, a case in Crime No. 22 of 2001 was registered by Rayavaram Police for the offence under Sections 337 and 338 IPC. After investigation of the case, a charge sheet was submitted showing the petitioner/injured/driver of the Van as an accused for having committed an offence punishable under Sections 337 & 338 IPC and Sections 181 & 206 of M.V.Act.

(c) The petitioner/injured filed an application claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the Tribunal on account of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident.

(d) The 1st respondent/owner of the offending vehicle filed a counter denying all the allegations made by the petitioner in the claim petition with respect to the income of the petitioner, nature of injuries, mode of treatment and the alleged disability sustained by him and further averred that the petition is not maintainable and even otherwise, the claim is excessive and prayed to dismiss the petition.

(e) The 2nd respondent-National Insurance company filed a counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition specifically with respect to the income, age, avocation of the petitioner/injured, mode of treatment and the alleged disability sustained by him. It is further denied that the petitioner was having valid driving licence at the time of the accident, the 1st respondent is the owner and possessed valid documents and this respondent is the insurer of the vehicle in question. It is averred that this petition is liable to be dismissed as the alleged accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself. It is further averred that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. At the most, the petitioner can claim compensation under Workmen’s Compensation Act and prayed to dismiss the petition.

(f) In view of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the petitioner himself and, if so, whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation and, if so, to what extent and against whom?

(2) To what relief?

(g) In order to establish his claim, the petitioner/claimant adduced oral evidence of two witnesses (P.Ws.1 and 2) and produced as many as six documents (Exs.A.1 to A.6) on his behalf. One K.V.V. Satya Prasad, who was working as Junior Assistant in R.T.O Office, Kakinada was