A valid driving license permits operation of light transport vehicles, impacting liability and compensation in motor vehicle accident claims.

JUDGMENT :

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.

1. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed for the reasons mentioned therein and delay of 76 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellants-claimants (for short ’the claimant’) dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 04.04.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.1, Kota (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in claim case No.1514/14 (517/11) whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,50,800/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition in favour of the claimants and exonerated the non claimant No.4- Iffko-Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited (for short ‘the Insurance Company’) from its liability to pay the compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the Tribunal has not considered the evidence and material available on record in the right perspective. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the respondent No.1 was having a license to drive the motorcycle and light motor vehicle, so respondent No.1 was entitled to drive the vehicle alleged in the accident. Learned counsel for the claimants has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in AIR 2017 SC 3668, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that a person who possesses the license to drive the light motor vehicle unladen weight of which is upto 7500 KG can drive the light transport vehicle also. So, finding of the Tribunal qua exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation be set aside and the insurance company be directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects whereas as per the age of the deceased i.e. 28 years, claimants are entitled to get 40% of the deceased’s income towards future prospects. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of estate whereas the claimants are entitled to get Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. Learned counsel for the claimants further submits that the Tribunal has awarded very meager amount of Rs. 25,000/- to claimant No.2 towards love and affection whereas claimant No.2 is entitled to get Rs. 40,000/- towards love and affection. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal be modified accordingly.

5. Learned counsel for the insurance company has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants and submitted that respondent No.1 was not having a valid and effective license to drive the alleged vehicle. So, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation. Learned counsel for the insurance company further submits that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.50,000/- to claimant No.1 towards loss of consortium on a higher side, whereas it should be Rs. 40,000/-. So, judgment and award of the Tribunal be modified accordingly.

6. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the claimants as well as learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

7. It is an admitted position that respondent No.1 was having a license to drive the light motor vehicle and motorcycle and as per the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), respondent No.1 was entitled to drive light transport vehicle. So, in my opinion, the Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation. The Tribunal has also not awarded any amount towards future prospects. As per the age of the deceased i.e. 28 years, claimant