A valid LMV license suffices for driving heavy goods vehicles, establishing insurer's liability for compensation despite allegations of breach.

JUDGMENT :

ASHOK S. KINAGI, J.

This Appeal is filed under Section 173(1) of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act,’ for short) by the appellant-claimant, challenging the judgment and award dated 12.08.2011 passed in MVC No.154/2011 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Hospet cum MACT-IV, Hospet.

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

3. On 24.12.2007, the petitioner and others were proceeding on a bus bearing Reg.No.KA-25/F-901 from Raral Thanda to Hospet on NH-13. Near Gollarhalli, the driver of a lorry bearing Reg.No.KA-01/AB-930 came from the opposite direction, in a rash and negligent manner, and collided with the bus. Due to the said impact, the petitioner and others sustained grievous injuries. Thus, the petitioner and others filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them in a road traffic accident.

4. Respondent No.1- the driver and Respondent No.3-the Insurance Company, appeared before the Tribunal. Despite service of notice, respondent No.2-the owner remained unrepresented and was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.1 filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that respondent No.1 was possessing a valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident, and the policy was in force. Hence, he prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.1.

5. Respondent No.3-Insurance Company filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition. It is contended that the claim petition is not maintainable for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is contended that the drivers of the lorry in question and the bus, both were not having the valid and effective driving license as of the date of the accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, clubbed all the claim petitions, and framed the common issues and additional issues.

7. The petitioners, to substantiate their case, examined themselves as P.Ws.1 to 5, and marked 10 documents as Exs.P1 to P10. On the other hand, the respondents did not lead any oral evidence, however, marked 3 documents as Exs.R1 to R3. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part, and awarded global compensation of Rs.5,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization, held that the owner and the driver of the lorry in question are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner and directed the owner of the lorry in question to deposit the compensation amount. The claim petitions against the Insurance Company were dismissed.

8. The petitioner, aggrieved by the quantum of compensation and liability passed in MVC No.154/2011, filed this Miscellaneous First Appeal.

9. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective license to drive LMV transport, as of the date of the accident. She submits that the said issue is covered by the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of MUKUND DEWANGAN VS ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668 . The said aspect was not considered by the Tribunal, and committed an error in dismissing the claim petition against the Insurance Company. She also submits that the compensation awarde