The court clarified that licensing requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act are dependent on the vehicle's weight, affecting liability in compensation claims.

ORDER

1. The aforesaid two appeals have arisen from a judgment and award dated 03.05.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge), Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (for short 'the Tribunal') in M.A.C. No.17/2011 titled as Mst. Kiran Devi & Ors. Vs. Shri Ram Singh & Anr., whereby Tribunal while allowing the claim petition, awarded a sum of Rs.4,78,000/- as a compensation in favour of the claimants. CMA No.4604/2019 has filed by the Insurance Company on various grounds whereas CMA No.4601/2019 has been filed by the claimants for enhancement of quantum.

2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal wrongly awarded compensation of Rs.4,78,000/- in favour of the claimants. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that driver of the offending vehicle did not have any valid license, fitness certificate and valid permit of the bus. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that the Tribunal wrongly came to the conclusion that the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Civil Petition No.32828/2010) is applicable in this case. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that the said judgment is applicable when a person who is having a license to drive light motor vehicle and he can drive light transport vehicle and the unladen weight of which is not more than 7500 kg. In present claim petition, alleged vehicle is passenger bus having weight of 14860 kg. So, judgment relied upon by the Tribunal is not applicable. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that offending vehicle had no valid permit. So, finding of the Tribunal be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the Insurance company has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma & Ors. reported in (2004) 8 SCC 517.

4. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that at the time of accident, deceased was employed in M/s Rawat Oil Company Nangal Choudhary, Haryana and getting salary of Rs.13,000/- per month but the Tribunal in its award assessed Rs.3,000/- per month as his income. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that there were 5 dependents of the deceased but the Tribunal wrongly deducted 1/3 amount towards the personal expenses of the deceased, whereas it should be 1/4. Learned counsel for the claimants also submits that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards future prospects and awarded only Rs.10,000/- as a consortium to wife and Rs.5,000/- to each child of the deceased, whereas it should be Rs.40,000/- for each of them. So, finding of the Tribunal be modified.

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

6. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) observed that a person having license to drive light motor vehicle, is authorized to drive light commercial vehicle. The Tribunal has wrongly relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra) for the reason that the said judgment is applicable only when unladen weight of the vehicle is not more than 7500 kg, whereas weight of the offending vehicle (Bus) is 14860 kg. So, finding of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

7. Thus, the Civil Misc. Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed. The judgment and award dated 03.05.2019 passed by the Tribunal in M.A.C. No.17/2011 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after hearing both the parties.

8. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 24.05.2023.

9. The Civil Misc. Appeal filed by the Claimants stands disposed of accordingly.

10. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.