The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a valid driving license specific to the type of vehicle involved in a motor vehicle accident, as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

C. N. ASHWATHANARAYANA RAO, J.

( 1 ) THE Insurance Company his filed this appeal against an award in MVC No. 255/94 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Court, Raichur, dated 23. 01. 96 challenging the fastening of the liability of paying compensation on the appellant/3rd respondent.

( 2 ) THE facts which have led to this appeal may briefly be stated as follows:the respondents 1 and 2 are the Wife and minor son of the deceased Rama Rao who died in a motor Vehicle accident filed an application for compensation. The petitioner's case was that on 20,5. 1994 at about 9. 30 p. m. when the deceased was proceeding on Gangavathi Sindhanoor road, a lorry bearing No. KA-15/0049 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the 3rd respondent (1st respondent before the Tribunal) dashed against Rama Rao resulting in the spot death. b) The Insurance Company in its written statement contended that the 1st respondent - Driver did not possess a valid driving licence and therefore there was a violation of the terms of the insurance policy and hence the insurance company was not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent-Owner. The said contention was made the subject matter of Issue No. 3. After trial and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, the learned Tribunal answered Issue No. 3 against the Insurance Company and consequently held it liable to indemnify the owner. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and award the insurance company has preferred this appeal.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the records.

( 4 ) THE facts in this case are not in dispute. By consent of parties (vide order sheet dated 20. 12. 95) two documents Ex-R,1 2 came to be marked as exhibits on behalf of the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company. Though the learned Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the respondents 1 and 2 did not give any such consent, the order sheet discloses that it was done in presence of both the parties and the petitioners never objected to the same. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant Ex. R-1 and 2 could be taken as having been marked as Exhibits with the consent of the petitioners. Ex-R. 1 is a zerox copy of the motor vehicle insurance cover note issued by the 3rd respondent in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident, Ex. R-2 is a xerox copy of the driving licence held by the 1st respondent. It goes to show that the 1st respondent had the licence to drive "hpv only". e. Heavy Passenger Vehicle.

( 5 ) THE appellant in the grounds urged in the appeal memo has contended that the trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the appellant has not proved that the driver of the lorry did not possess a proper driving licence to drive goods vehicle. It is contended, Ex. R-2 driving licence establishes that the driver had driving licence to drive only heavy passenger vehicle and not a goods vehicle. It is contended; the grounds on which the lower Court has rejected the appellant's contention are not satisfactory and cannot be accepted.

( 6 ) ELUCIDATING these contentions, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon certain provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (herein afterwards referred to as the ACT) and certain decisions. He drew my attention to Section 10 of the Act. It classifies the motor vehicles under different headings. Section 3 Clause 1 of the Act provides as follows: "no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle (other than a motor cab hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Sub-section (2) of Section 75 ). unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. " the learned Counsel for the appellant emphasized on the words 'effective driving licence' and the words 'specifically entitles him so to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document