The liability of an insurance company to compensate for an accident is not negated by the driver's lack of a specific endorsement on their license if the vehicle involved weighs less than 7500kg.

JUDGMENT

1. The appeals are listed in the "Orders category", however, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are being heard and disposed of finally by this common judgment.

2. The present appeals have been filed by the appellant-Owner of the vehicle against the judgment and award dated 21.03.2006 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in M.A.C. Case Nos.96/2004 and 55/2004 respectively, whereby, the 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 respondents-claimants and awarded a sum of Rs.65,000/- in M.A.C. Case Nos.96/2004 & Rs.47,000/- in M.A.C. Case Nos.55/2004 in favour of the claimants on account of the injuries suffered by the claimants in the accident which occurred on 15.04.2003.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the vehicle has submitted that the finding of the Tribunal on Issue Nos. 4 & 5 is not correct as the Tribunal held that since the Driver of the offending vehicle was holding the licence of Light Motor Vehicle and the vehicle being driven by its driver was transport vehicle and, therefore, he was not eligible to drive the transport vehicle. Therefore, the direction was given for payment of the compensation amount to the Insurance Company with a rider to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel submits that the findings on Issue Nos. 4 & 5 are incorrect in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan V/s Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2017) 14 SCC 663.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issue Nos. 4 & 5 do not suffer any infirmity, as admittedly the driver of the vehicle was not holding licence to drive the transport vehicle and, therefore, rider to pay and recover was rightly ordered by the Tribunal. He submits that no interference in the finding recorded by the Tribunal is warranted in the present case.

6. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 21.03.2006.

7. The findings of the Tribunal on Issue Nos. 4 & 5 appear to be incorrect in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra), wherein it was held that if the vehicle is weighing less than 7500kg., the driver of the said vehicle was holding the requisite licence to drive the transport vehicle or not, is of no consequences. If a driver is holding a driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle and there is no endorsement to the effect to drive the transport vehicle, it will not be a ground to deny the claim of the claimant to be satisfied by the Insurance Company. Admittedly, in the present case vehicle involved in the present case was a Jeep weighing less than 7500kg., therefore, in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (Supra) the liability to pay the compensation lies on the Insurance Company. Thus, the finding recorded by the Tribunal to pay the compensation by the Insurance Company and recover the same from the owner is set-aside.

8. Accordingly, the appeals preferred by the appellant-owner are allowed and the respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount to the claimants as ordered by the Tribunal vide its judgment and award dated 21.03.2006. The solvent security furnished by the appellant-owner in the present appeals are discharged.