The main legal point established in the judgment is that the driver must be duly authorized to drive the particular class of vehicle involved in the accident, as per the Motor Vehicles Act, and the liability for compensation is determined based on the validity of the driver's license.

B. Manohar, J.

1. The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance company filed this appeal challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and award dated 7th February 2011 made in MVC No. 9503/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal' for short) fastening liability on them to compensate the claimant.

2. The first respondent herein filed a claim petition contending that on 01-11-2009 at about 2.40 p.m., while he was proceeding on the footpath new BEML Railway Station of Bangarpet-KGF Road, a Hero Honda Unicorn motor cycle bearing Registration No. KA-02/EP-9495 ridden by its rider in a rash and negligent manner came from KGF side and dashed against the claimant. Due to the said impact, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to the Government Hospital at KGF. He had taken treatment there as an inpatient from 01-11-2009 to 04-11-2009. Prior to the accident, he was working as a mason and earning Rs. 7,500/- p.m. In view of the injuries and permanent disability suffered by the claimant, he cannot do the work of mason and sought for compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.

3. In response to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the insurance company defended the case by filing the written statement and contended that rider of the Hero Honda motorcycle was not holding valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to compensate the claimant.

4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed necessary issues.

5. The claimant got examined himself as P.W. 1 and the doctor who treated him was examined as P.W. 2 and got marked the documents as Ex. P1 to Ex. P10. On behalf of the respondent-insurance company, two witnesses were examined as R.W. 1 and R.W. 2 and got marked the documents as Ex. R1 to Ex. R5.

6. The Tribunal, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence let in by the parties and taking into consideration spot mahazar, charge sheet, IMV report held that the claimant sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent riding of the Hero Honda motorcycle. Hence he is entitled for compensation. Taking into consideration the injuries sustained and suffering undergone by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,43,400/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. With regard to liability is concerned, the insurance company had taken a specific contention that the rider of the motorcycle was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident, he had license to drive only LMV (NT) and he cannot drive two wheeler, the Tribunal over-looking the said objection raised by the insurance company; relying upon the judgment reported in 2010 ACJ 2510 (SRINIVASAGOWDA AND ANOTHER vs. SANNAMMA AND OTHERS) held that rider of the motorcycle was having valid driving license to drive the LMV and therefore he is eligible to drive the scooter also and fastened the liability on the insurance company to compensate the claimant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the insurance company has filed this appeal.

7. Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench decision of this Court rendered in MFA No. 12579/2007 disposed of on 1st September 2011. The Tribunal without taking into consideration the authoritative pronouncement of law by the Full Bench of this Court relying upon the Division Bench judgment referred to above, passed the judgment and award fastening liability on the insurance company to compensate the claimant which is contrary to law. The issue raised in this appeal is covered by the judgment of Full Bench decision of this Court and hence sought for setting aside the same by allowing this appeal.

8. On the other hand, Sri N. Gopalakrishna, learned