IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that a driver with a Heavy Transport Vehicle license is qualified to drive a Light Motor Vehicle, thus validating the insurance company's liability.

JUDGMENT :

K Sreenivasa Reddy, J.

Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A, filed by the appellant herein/ Insurance Company, is to the Award, dated 03.08.2011, in M.V.O.P. No.276 of 2008 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – V Additional District Judge, Rayachoty (‘Tribunal’ for short), whereunder the Tribunal, allowed the claim for compensation made by respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein/claimants for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, on account of the death of one S.Mubarak (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’), in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 13.12.2005 at 12.30 p.m.

2. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to, as described before the Tribunal, for the sake of convenience.

3. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal, in brief, according to the averments set out in the claim petition, is as follows:

The deceased was aged 8 years, studying First Class in Rayachoty by the time of the accident. On 13.12.2005, at about 12.30 p.m., the deceased came out of school and was playing near Chandra Brick kiln on Rajula Colony-Pemmadapalli-Dullavaripalli metal road in Rayachoty Town; at that time, a tractor bearing registration No.AP04 T 0420 belonged to respondent No.1 along with tanker bearing registration No.AP04 U 6804 belonged to respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the offending vehicle’), driven by one Shaik Imam Khasim, in a rash and negligent manner at high speed without blowing horn, dashed the deceased; as a result, the left tyre of the tractor ran over the head of the deceased and he died on the spot. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 insured the offending vehicle with respondent No.3. Basing on the report, a case in Crime No.178 of 2005 of Rayachoty Urban Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 304A IPC was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. It is contended that the respondent Nos.1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- to the claimants. Hence, the claim petition.

4. Respondent No.2/owner of the tanker remained ex parte.

5. Respondent No.1/owner of the tractor filed counter concurring with manner of occurrence of accident and death of the deceased, but it is contended that the accident occurred only due to negligence of the deceased as well as the driver of vehicle of respondent No.2. He further contended that the tractor was insured with respondent No.3 and it was in force at the material point of time.

6. Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed counter denying the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. It is contended that the respondent No.1 used the vehicle for commercial purpose carrying water tank and violated the policy conditions and the driver is also not qualified to drive the offending vehicle, hence, the respondent No.3 is not liable to pay the compensation as claimed. The claim of the claimants is excessive. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition.

7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for inquiry:

1. Whether the pleaded accident was occurred due to the fault of the driver of the Tractor No.AP04 T 0420 of the first respondent or due to the fault of the driver of the tanker bearing No.AP04 U 6804 of the second respondent?

2. Whether the first respondent violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy by the third respondent for the tractor No.AP04 T 0420?

3. Whether the driver of the Tractor No.AP04 T 0420 was having valid driving license as on the material date of accident?

4. Whether the second respondent violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy issued by third respondent for the tanker No.AP04 U 6804?

5. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so at what rate and against which of the respondents?

6. To what relief?

8. During the course of inquiry before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, 1st claimant was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. On behalf of the responde