IMPORTANT POINT
The possession of a valid driving license for the relevant vehicle category and the absence of a breach of the insurance policy influenced the court's decision regarding the liability for compensation.

JUDGMENT

1. The appellant/insurance company in this appeal filed under Section 173 of The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988[The Act] is assailing the common Judgment-cum-award dated 21.08.2023 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi[Tribunal], whereby the learned Tribunal granted compensation in favour of both the claimants and fastened the liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant insurance company.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, a claim petition was instituted by the claimants/respondents No. 1 and 2 viz., widow and son of the deceased, apart from Ms. Akansha (both the son and daughter are not arrayed in the present appeal) on 08.05.2019, seeking compensation for the death of the deceased Raj Kumar S/o Ms. Shanti Lal, who met with an accident on 18.10.2018 at about 10.00 p.m. at a spot under the Flyover Burari, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station Burari, Delhi, when his 'Phat Phat Seva vehicle', in which he was travelling as a passenger, was struck by a Metro Rail Feeder bus bearing registration No. Delhi-1PD-0482 (hereinafter referred to as the 'offending vehicle') driven in a rash and negligent manner, and though the victim was removed to Sushruta Trauma Centre, Civil Lines, Delhi, he succumbed to his injuries on 29.10.2018.

3. The appellant/insurance company has assailed the impugned judgment-cum-award in so far as the liability for making the payment of compensation has been fastened upon it primarily on the ground that the respondent No.2 i.e. the driver[Section 2(9) "driver" includes, in relation to a motor vehicle which is drawn by another motor vehicle, the person who acts as a steersman of the drawn vehicle], namely Sonu, who was employed with the respondent No.3/Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Limited, was evidently holding a driving license[Section 2(10) "driving licence" means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description] for plying the vehicle in the category of LMV-TR[Light Motor Vehicle -Transport] but instead, he was driving the offending bus in question, which comes under the category of a Heavy Motor Vehicle, or, to be specific, a HPMV[Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle] category vehicle.

4. Advance notice has been issued to both the respondent No.1 as well as respondent No.3. None had appeared for the respondent No.2 i.e. the driver, during the course of proceedings.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION:

5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties at the admission stage, and on perusal of the record, learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company alluded to the statement of R3W1/Uttam Foujdar, Motor Vehicle Inspector, Wazirpur Transport Authority, Delhi, which reads as under:

"I am a summoned witness. The copy of my employment ID Card is Ex. R3W1/1 (OSR). I have brought the summoned record i.e. the extract of driving license of Sonu. The attested copies of the same are Ex. R3W1/2 (Colly). As per records, the driving license of Sonu comes under the category of LMV (TR) at the time of accident i.e., 18.10.2018. As per the RC which is already Ex. PW1/5 (Colly) in DAR, the driver of the offending vehicle is not eligible to drive the offending vehicle bearing registration No.DL-1PD-0482."

6. It was vehemently urged that although an issue about the respondent No.2/driver not possessing a valid driving license to ply the offending vehicle was addressed at the time of making final submissions, the same was not decided correctly as per the law by the learned Tribunal. It would be expedient to reproduce the relevant portions of the common impugned judgment-cum-award that dealt with the aforesaid issue, which is as follows:

"73. On the point of liab