The driver lacked a valid licence for a heavy passenger vehicle, leading to the Insurance Company's exoneration from liability. Legal precedent clarifies different licensing requirements for vehicle weight categories.

JUDGMENT :

SUSHIL KUKREJA, J.

The instant appeal has been maintained by appellant, i.e., The New India Assurance Company Limited, who was respondent No. 3 before the learned Tribunal below (hereinafter referred to as “the appellant/Insurance Company”) under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘The Act’) against impugned award, dated 17.02.2014, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan, H.P., (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Tribunal”), whereby the claim petition filed by the petitioners-claimants (respondents No. 1 & 2 herein) under Section 166 of the Act, was allowed and they were held entitled for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the realization of the amount from respondent No. 3-Insurance Company, being insurer.

2. The facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the petitioners/claimants, being parents of Balwant alias Babloo (deceased) filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal below under Section 166 of the Act, wherein they averred that their son Balwant was playing with other children near patrol pump, Sun City Road, Baddi on 17.02.2010. Around 05:00 p.m., vehicle bearing registration No. HP-02-7081 (offending vehicle) came from Baddi barrier side and crushed the deceased. The offending vehicle at that time was being driven by respondent No. 1-Vishal in a rash and negligent manner and was on high speed. The deceased was crushed under the tyres of the offending vehicle and while he was being taken to Chandigarh, he succumbed to his injuries. As per the petitioners, due to the death of their son, they suffered mental agony and stress and accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 1. The petitioners sought compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- from the respondents, i.e., respondent No. 1-Vishal (driver), respondent No. 2 (owner of the offending vehicle) and respondent No. 3 (insurer).

3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed their joint reply, wherein they averred that no accident was committed by vehicle, bearing registration No. HP-02-7081, therefore, there was no question of rash and negligent driving of the above vehicle by respondent No. 1. The replying respondent further averred that their vehicle was fully insured with respondent No. 3 and in case compensation was payable on account of the death of the deceased, then respondent No. 3-Insurance Company was liable to pay the same, being insurer.

4. Respondent No. 3-Insurance Company (appellant herein), in its separate reply, admitted that offending vehicle was insured with it and denied that any information qua the accident was given to it by respondents No. 1 and 2. As per the replying respondent, there was possibility of respondents No. 1 and 2 conniving with the petitioners in order to fasten liability on it. It was averred that the offending vehicle was not duly registered and it was being plied without any route permit, thus there was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The driving of the offending vehicle was not having any valid and effective driving licnece to drive the same. Lastly, the replying respondent averred that the amount of compensation claimed by the petitioners was highly exaggerated without any legal basis and prayer for dismissal of the claim petition was made.

5. On 16.08.2012 the learned Tribunal below had framed the following issues for consideration and adjudication:

“1. Whether the accident was result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle in question by respondent No. 1, and the dece