The main legal point established in the judgment is that the driver's licence for a light motor vehicle authorized him to drive a lorry considered a light motor vehicle, making the insurer liable to indemnify the owner for the loss caused by the driver's actions.

( 1 ) UNITED India insurance co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'the insurer') has come up in appeal against the judgment and award of the m. a. c. t. Ii, Mysore (for short, 'the tribunal') in m. v. c. No. 780 of 1992 dated 8. 7. 1998 with the plea that the insurer was not liable to pay the amount awarded as the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid licence to drive the said vehicle as on the date of the accident.

( 2 ) SHIVANNA, injured (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') was going on his m-50 mini motor cycle bearing registration No. Cna 231 on 15. 6. 1992 at about 6. 50 a. m. To attend to his duty at railway workshop, mysore. A lorry bearing No. Mym 6633 driven by barly prasad, respondent No. 1, came from the cross road without halting on the main road. It came from the wrong side and hit the claimant as a result of which he sustained several injuries including a head injury. He was taken to jss hospital for treatment. Thereafter, he was referred to nimhans, Bangalore. He filed the claim petition through his wife as the guardian stating therein that he had become a total mental and physical wreck. He had lost his earning capacity for future. Respondent No. 2 is the owner of the offending vehicle which was fully insured with the appellant who was the respondent No. 3 before the tribunal.

( 3 ) , respondents entered appearance and filed their statement of objections. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed a joint written statement. They denied the version of the accident and stated that the accident had taken place due to the negligent act of the claimant himself. It was admitted that the respondent No. 1 was driving the lorry in question at the relevant point of time and the respondent No. 2 was its lawful owner. It was further stated that the lorry was insured with the insurer as on the date of the accident. As a counter objection it was stated that the respondent No. 1 took right turn from vidyaranyapuram, 16th cross road joining h. d. Kote main road. At that time claimant who was coming on his motor cycle at a high speed came from the opposite direction and hit the rear wheel of the lorry as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries. That the claimant was not entitled to any compensation. In any case the claim made was exorbitant and unreasonable. Insurer in the written statement admitted that the lorry in question was insured with it and the policy was in operation as on the date of the accident. He did not admit that the respondent No. 1 was holding a valid driving licence and as such was not liable to indemnify the owner for the loss caused. It restricted its liability subject to the scope of the policy.

( 4 ) ON the pleadings of the parties the following issues are framed: (1) whether the motor accident which occurred on 15. 6. 1992 at 6. 50 a. m. Near the junction of 16th cross, vidyaranyapuram and mysore-manandavadi road, was due to the rash and negligent driving of lorry bearing registration No. Mym 6633, or m-50 mini motor cycle bearing registration No. Cna 231 by the petitioner, or both? (2) whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, how much? (3) relief. Additional issue: (1) whether r-3 proves that respondent No. 1 had no valid driving licence to drive a lorry at the time of the accident?

( 5 ) PARTIES were allowed to lead evidence.

( 6 ) ON issue No. 1, the tribunal returned the finding that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing registration No. Mym 6633 by its driver. It was also held that the claimant did not in any way contribute in the causing of the accident. Under issue No. 2 it was held that the claimant as a result of the injury had become totally disabled. Although he was conscious but would remain totally dependent on others for day-to-day work. Further finding recorded was that he could not communicate. He finds it difficult to walk without the help of others. He cannot follow and respond to any oral