The central legal point established in the judgment is the impact of the driver's lapsed license on the liability of the Insurance Company in a motor accident claim.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 26.02.2003 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratangarh in MACT Case No. 18/2000, whereby learned Tribunal after framing the issues, evaluating the evidence on record and hearing the learned counsel for the parties decided the claim petition of the claimants and awarded Rs.63,000/- as compensation in their favour on account of the injuries sustained by Ashok Kumar in the accident which occurred on 25.10.1999.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No.3 are clear, categoric and specific wherein, the fact that the driver of the bus was not holding a valid driving license on the date of accident, is proved. He submits that the driver of the bus was having a license to drive the light motor vehicle and by an endorsement, he was also permitted to drive the heavy motor vehicle with effect from 07.03.1996 to 06.08.1999 and thereafter the same was renewed from 28.10.1999 to 27.10.2002. He further submits that in view of the specific and clear findings on Issue No.3, the driver of the bus was not holding the valid driving license to drive the bus on the date of accident. He submits that the Tribunal committed an error while deciding Issue No.3 against the Insurance Company and holding that even if the license was not renewed, the driver of the bus was competent to drive the vehicle. He, therefore, submits that the findings on Issue No.3 are contrary to the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Babu Tiwari vs United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2008 ACJ 2654. Learned counsel, while replying to the submissions made on cross objections, submits that the amount of compensation awarded in the present case also does not require any interference by this Court as the Tribunal awarded a 'just compensation' to the appellant for the injuries suffered in this case.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants and Mr. Lalit Parihar, learned counsel for respondent No.5, submit that it is a fact that the driver of the bus knew driving, as before and after the accident the license was validated by the transport agencies and it cannot be said that the driver of the bus was not eligible to drive the vehicle on the date of accident, therefore, the findings of the Tribunal in the present case are just and proper. They further submit that no interference is warranted on the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.3. Learned counsel for the claimant submits that the amount of compensation which was awarded in the present case for the injuries suffered by the cross objectioner Ashok Kumar, is on the lower side. He submits that the cross objectioner sustained three grievous injuries and was hospitalized for a period of about seven days and, therefore, a suitable amount in the present case is prayed to be enhanced.

5. I have considered the submission made at the Bar and have gone through the judgment dated 26.02.2003 as well as other relevant record of the case.

6. On Issue No.3, the facts have been crystalized to the effect that the driver of the bus was holding a valid HTV license from 07.03.1996 to 06.08.1999 and thereafter from 28.10.1999 to 27.10.2002. The admitted position which emerges is that the heavy transport vehicle driving license was in a lapsed condition on the date of accident i.e 25.10.1999. When the Tribunal recorded these concrete facts and the fact of the non-renewal of the license on the date of accident, the Tribunal could not have recorded the finding that the driver of bus was eligible to drive the bus on the date of accident and thus, the liability to pay the compensation could not have been fastened on the Insurance Company in light of the judgment in the case of Ram Babu Tiwari vs United India Insurance Company Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

"Para 18. It is beyond any do