A driver with a valid light motor vehicle license can legally operate a transport vehicle, and insurance companies must fulfill liability for third-party claims despite ownership transfer issues.

JUDGMENT :

Sumathi Jagadam, J.

This appeal is preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited, the 2^nd respondent in the claim petition, challenging the order dated 16.02.2009 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Kadapa, in W.C.No.116 of 2007, which granted compensation of Rs.5,10,692/- to the applicant for the injuries sustained in a road accident.

2. For convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the claim petition.

3. The applicant is 25 years old and employed as a driver of a Tata Sumo, bearing registration number AP 04U 7351, owned by opposite party-III. On 13.07.2007, the applicant, along with Nadendla Subahan Basha and his family, was travelling in the Tata Sumo to Reddivaripalli village in Talupula Mandal, Anantapur District. When the vehicle reached the Muddanuru-Pulivendula road, the Sumo’s rear tyre was punctured due to loss of air. This caused the driver to lose control over the vehicle, resulting in the vehicle overturning and being dragged to some distance. Consequently, the applicant and other occupants sustained serious injuries. They were admitted to the Government General Hospital in Pulivendula, where the applicant was hospitalised for two months. As a result of the accident, the applicant’s right hand was permanently disabled, and he lost 50% of his vision and earning capacity. The Thondur Police registered Crime No. 33/2007 regarding the incident. Opposite party-III had purchased the vehicle from opposite party-I on February 13, 2007, but the vehicle's policy had not been transferred to opposite party-III. Therefore, opposite party-II is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-, along with 12% interest.

4. Opposite Parties I and III were set ex parte. Opposite Party II- Insurance Company filed a counter stating that Opposite Party I is not the owner of the Tata Sumo, rendering the application non- maintainable. The applicant holds a non-transport LMV driving licence, and as the Tata Sumo is a transport vehicle, the Insurance Company is not liable for compensation. Additionally, the applicant must demonstrate that he is unfit to drive. Accordingly, the petition was sought to be dismissed.

5. During the course of the trial, on behalf of the applicant, A.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were marked. On behalf of Opposite Party-II, R.W. 1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.

6. After considering the arguments advanced by both the counsel and examining the evidence on record, including oral and documentary evidence, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the petition and, by an order dated 16.02.2009, awarded compensation of Rs.5,10,692/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the petition until the date of deposit. The Insurance Company has filed the present appeal, challenging this order and raising the following substantive questions of law.

1) Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in making the appellant liable to pay compensation, when the 1^st respondent was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the insured vehicle?

2) Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in treating the 1^st respondent as a driver of the insured vehicle when he was not holding an effective driving licence?

3) Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in treating the 1^st respondent as a driver of the insured vehicle when he was not holding an effective driving licence?

4) Whether the order of the Commissioner is correct in making the appellant lia