The absence of a PSV Badge does not render a driving licence invalid or ineffective for the purpose of driving a transport vehicle, provided that the driver is otherwise authorized to drive such a vehicle.

P. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) THE Insurance Company challenge the order dated 12-12-1995, passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack.

( 2 ) THE present opposite parties 1 to 8 filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation alleging that the husband of opposite party No. 1 expired in an accident caused due to negligent driving of the vehicle, a trekker bearing number OR-04-5341 belonging to present opposite party No. 9. The claim option was placed before Lok Adalat and the amount of compensation payable to the claimants was amicably settled subject to verification of the Driving Licence of the driver of the Trekker. Thereafter, the Insurance Company filed an application stating that though the driver of the vehicle had the Driving Licence bearing number 803/88-89, he did not have P. S. V. Badge and as such was not authorised to drive any public service vehicle. It was stated that since the trekker was registered as public service vehicle and on the date of accident passengers were being carried in the trekker, the Insurance Company was not liable, as the trekker was being driven by a person who did not have effective driving licence. Subsequently, an additional written statement was filed by the Insurance Company to the very same effect, as per Annexure 1 to the present writ application.

( 3 ) AFTER examining the documents filed by both parties, the Claims Tribunal found that on the date of accident, the driver had a Driving Licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle. It was further observed :-". . . . . This being so, in the absence of any endorsement that he was not authorised to drive transport vehicle, he cannot be said to have D. L. to drive a light Motor Vehicle (Trekker ). In this circumstance, at best the driver of the vehicle can be answerable in the Criminal Court if had violated any rule. The insurer cannot claim for exemption on ground as he had a valid D. L. to drive both light and heavy motor vehicle on the date of accident. In the result, therefore, the objection raised is groundless and therefore, the O. P. No. 2 cannot escape liability which he has undertaken to discharge in the compromise petition. "with the aforesaid observation, the second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal rejected the application of the Insurance Company not to give effect to the compromise effected before Lok Adalat. The said order, Annexure 3, is being impugned in the present writ application.

( 4 ) THE claimants (opposite parties 1 to 8) have filed a counter. The owner-opposite party No. 9 has entered appearance through counsel, but no counter has been filed. Along with the counter of opposite parties 1 to 8 copy of the Driving Licence of the driver of the vehicle in question has been filed as Annexure A/1 and copy of the application filed by the Insurance Company before the Claims Tribunal after the settlement before Lok Adalat has been filed as Annexure B/1. They have also filed copy of the judgment passed in W. C. Case No. 671-D/93 as Annexure C/1, whereunder the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner passed an award for payment of compensation to the driver of the trekker. The said judgment has been relied upon in support of the contention that the driver had a valid driving licence.

( 5 ) THE subsequent order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal holding that there was a driving licence and the Insurance Company was liable to honour the settlement effected in Lok Adalat should also be taken to be in award within the meaning of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as it adjudicated the liability of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation in accordance with the compromise effected between the claimants and the Insurance Company in Lok Adalat and as such in ordinary course, could have been challenged by filing an appeal as envisaged under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. However, since writ application has been filed and all the parties have appeared and after their releva