JUDGMENT :

1. Impugned in this Appeal is Award dated 29th March 2014, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag (for short “Tribunal”) on a Claim petition bearing File no.94/Claim titled as Ghulam Mohiuddin Wani v. Mohammad Shafi Dukroo and others, directing appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation in the amount of Rs.2,25,600/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of institution of claim till realization, on the grounds made mention of therein.

2. A claim petition, as is discernible from perusal of the file, was filed by respondent no.1/claimant before the Tribunal on 3rd December 2009, averring therein that on 5th August 2009, he boarded a vehicle – TATA 407, bearing Registration no.JK03-1388, driven by respondent no.3 herein rashly and negligently, on reaching near Naibasti, Qaimoh, the offending vehicle overturned/skidded off the road and in consequence of which, claimant/respondent no.1 was seriously injured; his left arm and right shoulder got fractured, causing him disability. Claimant/Respondent no.1 in his claim petition, prayed for grant of compensation in the amount of Rs.54.00 Lakhs.

3. Appellant Insurance Company resisted the claim petition before the Tribunal. Their stand was that driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence and vehicle was being plied without valid and effective vehicular documents.

4. The Tribunal, in view of pleadings of parties, framed Issues for determination, which are:

1) Whether on 05.08.2009 the petitioner boarded the vehicle bearing registration No.JK03-1388 which was being driven by the respondent No.2 rashly and negligently and the said vehicle turned turtle at Naibasti Qaimoh with the result petitioner received injuries and become permanently disabled? OPP

2) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative to what extent the petitioner is entitled to receive the compensation and from whom? OPP

3) Whether offending vehicle was not having valid and effective documents at the time of accident, therefore, respondent No.3 cannot be saddled with liability? OPR3

4) Relief.

5. Claimants in support of their claim before the Tribunal produced and examined five witnesses. Appellant Insurance Company produced one witness, namely, Shabir Ahmad Dar, Licence Record Keeper ARTO Anantnag. By virtue of impugned Award, the Tribunal found claimant entitled to compensation in the amount Rs.2,25,600/- along with 6% interest per annum from the date of institution of claim till realization. This is how the instant Appeal has come up before this Court.

6. According to learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company, liability to satisfy the Award has been wrongly mulcted upon appellant. Appellant Insurance Company no doubt was insurer of offending vehicle but as per contract of insurance, liability of appellant Insurance Company would arise only when owner/insured would not commit any breach of terms and conditions of policy of insurance. The owner/ insured – respondent no.2 herein is stated to have allowed offending vehicle to be plied by respondent no.3, who was having invalid driving licence to drive offending vehicle and, therefore, liability ought to have been fastened upon owner of offending vehicle. It is contended that finding on Issue no.3 is bad in law as Tribunal has not taken into account the fact that respondent no.3 as driver of offending vehicle was having authorization to drive only LMV (Light Motor Vehicle) and not a medium passenger motor vehicle. The medium passenger motor vehicle excludes within its definition the light motor vehicle and thus driver was not authorized to drive a medium passenger motor vehicle.

7. The above contentions of learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company, when examined in the context of impugned Award, more particularly when the Tribunal while deliberating upon and deciding Issue no.3, has taken care of all the aspects of the matter that were required to be looked into by it while rendering the Award, are misconceived