The absence of endorsement on the driver's licence to drive a commercial vehicle was not sufficient to absolve the insurance company of its liability to pay compensation.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal against the award dated 07.05.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in Claim Petition No.391/2010 whereby the claimants have been awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,37,850/- with interest @ 8% per annum for the death of Sh.Joginder Kumar in the fatal accident.

2. The grievance of the appellant/insurance company agitated before this Court is restricted to grant of recovery rights. Mr. Sameer Nandwani, Advocate appearing on behalf of appellant/insurance company has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the driving licence issued to the driver Balram Singh, who is respondent no.7 before this Court, was only for driving light motor vehicles (LMV). On the date of accident, the driver Balram Singh was driving a Taxi, which is a commercial vehicle. The learned Tribunal failed to grant recovery rights to the insurance company despite the fact that the offending vehicle bearing registration No.HR-55-FT-9021 was a taxi being driven by a person not holding driving licence to drive commercial vehicle, hence the recovery rights should have been granted to the insurance company. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon Sanjay vs. Suresh Chand & Ors. 2012 VII AD (Delhi) 561, National Insurance Company ltd. vs. Shadab & Ors. 2014 I AD (Delhi) 421 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Cheruvvakkara Nafeessu & Ors. (2001) 2 SCC 491 in support of his contentions.

3. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellant/insurance company and carefully gone through the record.

4. Since the appellant/insurance company has not challenged the award on the point of quantum and no appeal has also been preferred by the driver/owner of the offending vehicle, findings of the learned Tribunal in respect of the quantum of compensation as well on the issue of negligence have attained finality.

5. Now the only issue remains for consideration is as to whether in the absence of endorsement on the driving licence to drive a commercial vehicle, the insurance company can claim it to be breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the driver and owner of the offending vehicle so as to claim recovery rights. The learned Tribunal has declined to grant recovery rights to the insurance company for the following reasons:-

21. Now coming to the next aspect as to who is liable to pay the compensation. In this matter, the Ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 has sought recovery rights on the ground that the driving licence of the respondent No.1 was not valid and effective for the period of accident. To prove this fact, he has summoned a witness from the RTO office, Bulandshahar, U.P. who has been examined as R3W2 and has deposed that as per the record, the driving licence no.NT104576/BSR has been issued from their Authority on 6.02.2006 in the name of Sh.Balram Singh, S/o Sh.Ramesh Singh and was valid upto 5.01.2026. This licence was endorsed for category of LMV (T) w.e.f. 30.05.2008 to 29.05.2011 and has been issued from their Authority and he can say that on 31.12.2007 this licence was not valid for driving the commercial vehicle. In the entire written statement, it has no where come that the offending vehicle was a commercial vehicle at all. The petitioners have stated the offending vehicle being LMV/car in para 14 of the petition. In reply to this para, there is simple denial of this fact and the petitioners are sought to be put to strict proof thereof. The respondent No.2 is definitely the owner of the offending vehicle and is running M/s Paras Tour & Travels and the vehicle was duly insured with the respondent no.3. There is no cross examination by the ld. Counsel for respondent no.3 on this aspect that the offending vehicle was a commercial vehicle at all. Although R3W1 has deposed that he is well conversant of the facts of the case and the offending vehicle was owned by the respondent no.2 and the same is duly insured by t