A driver holding a 'Heavy Goods Vehicle' (HGV) license is competent to drive a passenger carrying vehicle without 'Public Service Vehicle' (PSV) endorsement.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act of 1988”) is directed against the award dated 19th of May, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (for brevity “the Tribunal”) in a claim Petition titled ‘Noor Hussain Dar v. Mushtaq Ahmad Sofi & Ors.’, whereby the claim Petition stands allowed and the claimant/Respondent No.1 herein held entitled to the compensation worked out at Rs.1,90,000/-, inclusive of interim relief, if any, granted, along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim Petition, till final realization of the awarded amount.

2. The brief facts of the case, as come to the fore from the perusal of the pleadings on record, are that a claim Petition came to be filed before the learned Tribunal by the claimant/Respondent No.1 herein, asserting therein that on 24th of January, 2004, while he was going in his Auto Rickshaw (Load Carrier) bearing registration No. JK01G/3421 and when he reached Khona Khan, Dalgate, he was hit by a bus bearing registration No. JKE-2373 driven very rashly and negligently by the Respondent No.2/Appellant No.2 herein, causing grievous injuries to the claimant, including privation of his eye sight. On the basis of the aforesaid facts and with the support of the relevant documents, the claimant/Respondent No.1 herein prayed for grant of compensation in his favour to the tune of Rs.19, 28,000/-, along with interest.

3. It appears that the Appellants, Respondents 1 and 2 therein, filed the Objections before the Tribunal, wherein it was specifically pleaded that the Respondent No.1/Appellant No.1 herein, i.e., the owner of the vehicle, was under a bonafide belief that the driver of the vehicle viz. Respondent No.2/Appellant No.2 herein was holding a valid license and, as such, the owner of the vehicle engaged the said Respondent No.2 as driver of the vehicle. It was also stated that the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving license and, by virtue of the said driving license, he was authorized to drive LMV, Medium Goods Vehicle and HMV, however, the license was without having ‘Public Service Vehicle’ (PSV) endorsement. Subsequently, since the Respondents 1 and 2/Appellants herein did not turn up before the Tribunal and, as such, they, vide Order dated 21st of December, 2004, were proceeded ex-parte.

4. The Respondent-Insurance Company is also stated to have filed the Response before the Tribunal, wherein it was pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license on the material date of accident and, thus, the insured/owner has committed breach of policy condition on the date of accident, which exonerates the Insurance Company from any liability. It was further stated that the claim Petition of the Petitioner was vague, misconceived and did not disclose any cause of action as against the Insurance Company and, therefore, same is liable to be dismissed.

5. After conclusion of the proceedings and hearing both the sides, the learned Tribunal, in terms of the impugned award dated 19th of May, 2012, allowed the claim Petition, thereby holding the claimant/Respondent No.1 herein entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,90,000/-, inclusive of interim relief, if any, granted, along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim Petition till final realization of the awarded amount. The Tribunal, however, directed the Insurance Company to deposit the awarded amount in the first instance with the Tribunal with a right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle/Appellant No.1 herein.

6. The award impugned has been assailed by the Appellants- owner and driver of the offending vehicle, insofar as it directs the Insurance Company to recover the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle/Appellant No.1 herein by filing simple recovery application. The main grou