The driver must possess a valid and effective driving license for the type of vehicle involved in the accident, and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has the duty to assess just compensation.

Hasnain Massodi, J.

1. The dependents of Shri Mohammad Ilyas Beigh, who on 14th June, 2005 lost his life in a vehicular accident, filed a claim petition before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, claiming an amount of Rs. Twenty lakhs, as compensation on account of loss of income, future prospects loss of consortium, loss of love and affection and other available grounds, from the Insurance Company with which the offending vehicle was insured. The claim petion was registered as claim petition No. 200/2005.

2. Ms. Aftaba Nazneen travelling with her husband Mohd. Ilyas Beigh as pillion rider on his scooter at the time of accident, got seriously injured in the accident and filed a claim petition for award of Rs. Ten lakhs, on account of permanent disability due to the vehicular accident, hospitalization, Medical treatment etc. The claim petition was registered as claim petition No. 201/2005.

3. The Insurance Company-appellant herein, resisted both the claim petitions inter alia on the grounds that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and that as the vehicle was not having valid route permit and Fitness Certificate at the time of accident, the owner of the vehicle was guilty of breach of policy conditions and the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation.

4. The Tribunal, on perusal of the pleadings settled following issues :

Issue No. 1 :-- Wheter on 6-6-2005, the petitioner while travelling with her husband on a scooter as a pillion rider from Soura towards Nowhatta were hit near Hawal by vehicle with registration No. 40-HP/3472 coming from the opposite direction while being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, (respondent No. 2) with the result that both, she and her husband were injured whereas her husband expired on 16-6-2005, whereas, the petitioner sustained multiple injuries resulted into permanent disablement ? OPR

Issue No. 2 :-- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, on account of the injury sustained and if so to what extent and from whom? OPP.

In claim petition No. 201/2005, the following additional issue was framed;

Issue No. 3 :-- Whether the respondent No. 2 was travelling unauthorized in the offending vehicle in contravention of the policy of the Insurance and as such, the respondent/ company is not liable by the contract of Insurance ? OPR-3.

5. The issue did not find place in list of issues in claim petition No. 200/2005.

6. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties, awarded an amount of Rs. 12,62,000/- in favour of the claimants in claim petition No. 200/2005 and an amount of Rs. 1, 42,000/- in favour of claimant in claim petition No. 201/2005.

The awards passed in claim petitions 200/2005 and 201/2005 dated 30-5-2009 are assailed through medium of two separate Civil 1st Miscellaneous Appeals registered as CIMA Nos. 193/2009 and 194/2009, on the grounds that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the driver of the offending vehicle had the driving license to drive medium goods vehicle (MGC) heavy goods vehicle (HGV) and heavy passenger service vehicle (HPSV) and not the driving license to drive Load Carrier 407 -- a light motor vehicle (LMV) involved in the accident and that the owner of the vehicle by entrusting the vehicle to a driver not having an effective driving license committed breach of the policy conditions. It is insisted that the Tribunal relying on the law laid down by the Apex Court in Kusum Rai's case (2006) 4 SCC 250: (AIR 2006 SC 3440) ought to have held the owner of the vehicle -- respondent No. 8 in the petition to have violated the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy and to be responsible to pay the compensation to the victims of the accident. The Tribunal, it is pleaded, has erroneously and oblivious settled legal position saddled the appellant with the responsibility to pay compensation to the respondents 1 to 6.

7. It is next pleaded that the compensat