The main legal point established is that in cases where the driver did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, the insurance company can be directed to pay and recover the compensation.

JUDGMENT :

P.G.M. Patil, J.

The insurer and the claimant being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 30.11.2009 in MVC No.274/2008 by the Fast Track Court-II cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-X at Bellary have filed these appeals.

2. It is the case of the claimant before the Tribunal that on 20.04.2007 at about 6.30 p.m., the petitioner was going along with his father by walk from Dalawala Maszid towards his house on proper side of the road. It is alleged that at that time one Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.Ka-35/M-4000 came from the opposite direction from Kasai Street driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the petitioner, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately he was shifted to VIMS Hospital, Bellary, where he took treatment from 24.04.2007 to 26.04.2007, thereafter he has taken treatment from other private doctors. Therefore he filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

3. In response to the notice, respondents No.1 and 3 remained absent and were placed ex parte. The respondent No.2-insurer appeared through counsel and filed written statement. He has admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with him. However he has denied that the accident took place due to the negligence of respondent No.3. He has denied that the driver had valid licence to drive the offending vehicle and denied injuries and also the medical expenses.

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

5. The next friend of the petitioner was examined as PW1 and got marked 30 documents as Ex.P1 to P30. Respondent No.2 got examined one witness as RW1 and got marked Ex.R1.

6. Learned member after hearing both the parties passed the impugned judgment awarding compensation of Rs.48,000/- with interest at 6% from the date of petition, till realization. Respondent No.2 was directed to deposit the compensation amount with a liberty to recover the same from respondent No.1 owner of the vehicle.

7. The insurer being aggrieved by the impugned judgment has filed MFA No.22500/2010 on the ground that the Tribunal has committed grave error directing the appellant insurer to pay and recover the compensation. The appellant has established that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence as on the date of accident and therefore, the insurer ought to have been exonerated and ought not have been directed to pay and recover the compensation.

8. The claimant being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment has filed MFA Crob. No.100156/2014 seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the ground that compensation awarded is on the lower side.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

10. A short question which arise for consideration in these appeals and cross objections before this Court is, as to whether the insurer has made out grounds to set aside the order, directing him to pay and recover the compensation amount and whether the claimants has made out grounds for enhancement of the compensation.

11. Learned counsel for the insurer/appellant submitted that it has been proved before the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle had no driving licence as on the date of accident and that the driving licence was renewed subsequent to the accident. Further, as the application for renewal was not filed within a period of 30 days from the date of expiry of the driving licence, the renewal would not take effect from the date of expiry. Therefore, it is clear case of not holding a valid driving licence as on the date of accident and therefore the order of the Tribunal directing the insurer to pay compensation amount and recover the same from the owner is not sustainable.

12. Per contra learned counsel for the claimant relying on the judgment in the case of Lal Singh Mar