1. A passenger bus met with an accident. The accident resulted in filing of several claims before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Leh, Ladakh. Those claims were considered together by the Tribunal. The owner, appellant before us, as well as the Insurance Company defended the claims before the Tribunal. The principal issues, i.e. whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving and whether the claimants are entitled to compensation, were decided in favour of the claimants to which no issues were raised in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company, or in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

2. On the basis of the defence put forward by respondent-Insurance Company, the following issues were raised:

(a) Whether respondent no. 3 (the driver of the vehicle) was not holding a valid driving license to drive a passenger bus on the date of accident, if so, what is its effect? And

(b) Whether the vehicle on the date of accident was being plied in violation of terms of insurance policy and conditions of the route permit as the bus was overloaded?

3. These issues were dealt with by the Tribunal in the manner as follows:

"Issue No. 3:

To prove the issue, Incharge RTO Office Leh Mr. Jaswant Singh has been produced. According to this witness as per the record, which the witness had brought with him, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the valid driving licence to ply the passenger bus. Witness has stated that the licence to ply a public transport needed the endorsement as PSV (Passenger Service Vehicle). In case of the Driving Licence of the respondent No. 3 this endorsement was not there. Statement of Mr. Rattan Lal Assistant Branch Manager, National Insurance Company, Branch Leh is also to the same effect.

From the evidence adduced by the respondent No. 1 it becomes clear that respondent No. 2 had no valid driving licence to ply the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Finding on this point is accordingly recorded. Now, what has to be its effect on the fate of the claim petition is not to be seen here. Since the respondent No. 1 has been given the liberty to file a separate case against the owner of the vehicle, effect of invalid driving licence of the driver of the vehicle will be seen in that separate case and not in the present case.

Issues 4 and 5 though framed, as having arisen in view of the pleadings of the parties, need no disposal, at this stage for the reason that respondent insurance company has been held to be free to launch a separate action against the owner of the offending vehicle after making the payment of the awarded amount with interest to the petitioners. Because petitioners in the subsequent case cant be dragged as a party, as they have nothing to agitate or to say in the dispute between the Insurance Company and the insured owner. That indeed would be a tussle between the Insurance Company on one hand and the owner of the offending vehicle on the other. Driver of the vehicle may have some involvement there, but the petitioners (claimants) have no concern at all with any such litigation. Therefore, leaving the above two issues open here same need to be adjudicated upon in a separate action to be brought by the respondent Insurance Company against the insured, who is the owner of the offending vehicle. In that separate action to be brought by the insurer, the insured would get every opportunity to defend. In the present petition paramount concern of this Forum has to be to relieve the claimants from the ordeals of the litigation as early as possible, distressed class as they are having lost their kith and kin; some of whom at the prime of their youth. Money may of course provide a succour to them, but it cant heal their wounds caused because of the loss of their blood relations."

4. Against the award of the Tribunal, respondent-Insurance Company preferred an appeal. The Appellate Court held that, when the Tribunal returned a finding that the driver was not authorised to drive public se

Click Here to Read the rest of this document