1. Despite service respondents 1 & 2 are not present. Accordingly they are set exparte.

2. Heard.

3. Claimant-respondent No. 1, namely, Rajinder Singh, the victim of vehicular accident, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu in the year 2001 for grant of compensation. The driver, owner/insured and the insurer-Oriental Insurance Company appeared and contested the claim petition. The following issues came to be framed by the learned Tribunal:

1. Whether an accident took place on 8.10.2000 near Sainik School Nagrota due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle bearing Chasis No.00D156500683, by its driver in which the petitioner had sustained injuries, if so, of what nature? OPP

2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so of what amount and from whom? OPP

3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident?

4. Relief? OP Parties

4. Claimant-respondent No.1 examined the witnesses. The insurer-respondent No.3 also examined the witnesses. However, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle did not examine any witness. The learned Tribunal after scanning the statements of the witnesses and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, granted the claim petition and awarded an amount of Rs.1,59,200/- with 9% interest in favour of claimant-respondent No.1 and against the owner/insured and insurer. However, the insurer-respondent No.3 has been given the right of recovery from the owner/insured. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant/owner/insured has questioned the award by the medium of this appeal so far as it relates to the recovery.

5. It appears that the insurer/respondent No.3 also questioned the award by the medium of CIMA No.29/2004 and the same came to be dismissed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 15.3.2004. A photocopy of the said judgment is made part of the file. Mr. Rajesh, learned counsel for respondent No.3 frankly conceded that the Insurance Company has not challenged the said judgment of this Court by the medium of Letters Patent Appeal. Thus the award, except the right of recovery, has attained finality.

6. Now the moot question for consideration is whether the learned Tribunal has rightly granted the right of recovery to respondent No.3 or otherwise. In other words, the precise question is whether the findings returned by the Tribunal vis-a-vis issue No.3 is bad in law or not.

7. The learned Tribunal has held that the driver of the offending vehicle was having the driving licence to drive only the `heavy goods vehicle. As the said licence was not having the endorsement to drive the tractor, therefore, it held that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid driving licence and, accordingly, saddled the insurer-respondent No.3 with liability but with right of recovery.

8. The witnesses examined by respondent No.3, namely, Jaswant Singh and K. C. Sharma have specifically deposed that the driver was having licence to drive the "heavy goods vehicle".

9. In terms of Section 2(16) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "Act"), the definition of "heavy goods vehicle" includes the tractor the unladen weight of which exceeds 12,000 kilograms.

10. Section 2(21) of the Act defines "light motor vehicle". The definition of "light motor vehicle" includes the tractor the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms.

11. Section 2(23) of the Act defines the "medium goods vehicle". It specifically provides that "medium goods vehicle" means any goods vehicle/carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle.

12. It is apt to reproduce Sections 2(16), 2(21) and 2(23) of the Act herein.

"2(16) "heavy goods vehicle" means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms."

"2(21) "light motor vehicle" means a transport vehicle or omnibus

Click Here to Read the rest of this document