The driver must hold a valid and effective driving license with a specific endorsement to drive the transport vehicle, as per the Motor Vehicles Act.

D. Raju, C.J.—The above appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the award dated 21.9.1992 in Motor Accidents Claims Petition No. 7 of 1991 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, whereunder a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants who suffered injuries as a result of accident due to collision between a Maruti Van bearing No. HP-02-0251 belonging to the third respondent and a Motor Cycle. The accident was said to have occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Van by its driver,the 2nd respondent herein. The first respondent herein made a claim for the award of a sum of Rs. 3 lacs from the respondents. The third respondent in the tribunal below was the insurance company (appellant herein) with whom the Maruti Van was said to have been insured.

2. The respondents contended that the claimant did not suffer injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Van by its driver but it was due to negligent driving of the Motor-cyclist. It was also claimed that the Maruti Van was being driven in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act and in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation.

3. On the above claims and counter-claims, the claim petition came to be tried and the learned Judge in the Tribunal below, on an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record came to the conclusion that the accident has occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Maruti Van, the 2nd respondent herein and that it is on account of the same the claimant received injuries resulting in the fracture of the right leg of the claimant, which caused permanent disability to him to the tune of 15 per cent. As for the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal below as noticed above, determined the sum at Rs. 25,000/ - and held the insurance company liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

4. Aggrieved, the insurance company has filed the above appeal contending that inasmuch as the Maruti Van in question was registered as Taxi, which is a public service vehicle and was being plied as such taxi ajnd the second respondent-driver had no proper endorsement in the driving licence to drive a transport vehicle or to the effect that the driving licence was valid for hill road driving also, the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation. The licence held by the second respondent herein carried endorsement to drive through out India the Scooter/M. Cycle/Car/Jeep/ LTV only and no doubt there is no specific endorsement with respect to the hill road driving or to drive a transport vehicle.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. Ravi Bakshi reiterated the stand that in the absence of a specific endorsement, the licence of the second respondent-driver will not enable him to drive the vehicle in question and that too on hill road and, therefore, he must be considered to have been not holding a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question and consequently the insurance company cannot be saddled with any liablitiy for the claim arising out of the accident in question. Learned Counsel for the claimant Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma while adopting the reasoning of the Tribunal below, in support of the award also further contended that the licence held by him was sufficient in law to drive the vehicle of the type involved in the accident and driven by the second respondent and, that, therefore, the appellant cannot claim immunity from their liability for the claim. The second respondent-driver has been represented by Mr. Lalit Sharma who also contested the claim made in the appeal by contending that the insurance company would be liable and not exonerated from liability to pay the compensation in terms of the award of the Tribunal below. The third respondent-owner of the vehicle of