JUDGMENT

DR. B.R. SARANGI, J. - This is an intra-Court appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment dated 25.10.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 285 of 1996 confirming the award dated 15.01.1996 passed by the 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 205 of 1994 directing to settle the claim as per the compromise in the Lok Adalat by paying an amount of Rs. 1.00 lakh, subject to verification of driving licence.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that on account of death of the deceased-Dhruba Charan Pal, who died in a vehicular accident, the claimant-respondents no.1 to 3 filed claim misc. case no. 205 of 1994 in the Court of Second M.A.C.T., Cuttack for grant of lump sum compensation to the tune of Rs.3,50,000/-.

3. The claimant-respondents no.1 to 3 alleged that on 15.10.1993, while the deceased was walking on the left side of the road, the offending vehicle (mini truck) bearing registration no. OR-02-A-4314 coming at high speed,negligently dashed against the deceased, as a result of which the deceased sustained serious head injuries and was shifted to S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack, but despite all possible treatment, the deceased died on the next date, i.e., on 16.10.1993.

4. The owner-respondent no.4 did not contest the case and was set ex-parte. On the other hand, the appellant- Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement refuting all the allegations contained in the claim petition. The above claim misc. case no. 205 of 1994 was listed in the Lok Adalat. The appellant-Insurance Company agreed to settle the case for a sum of Rs.1.00 lakh towards full satisfaction subject to the condition that the claimants shall prove that the driver of the offending vehicle holds a valid driving licence and accordingly, claimants undertook that they will produce materials to show that the driver of the offending offence had valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident.

5. The appellant–Insurance Company enquired into the matter from the office of the R.T.O., Bhubaneswar wherefrom it transpired that the driver-Deba Kumar Tarai was not authorized to drive any transport vehicle. During the period of accident the driver had a driving licence to drive only light motor vehicle and he had no P.S.V. Badge.

6. The appellant-Insurance Company thereafter filed a petition before the tribunal to recall the conditional compromise on the ground that the driver had no valid and effective driving licence and also prayed for regular hearing of the case. But the tribunal rejected the prayer of the appellant and directed it to pay a sum of Rs. 1.00 lakh as per Lok Adalat compromise.

7. Being aggrieved by award dated 15.01.1996 passed by the 2nd M.A.C.T., Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 205 of 1994, the appellant preferred misc. appeal before this Court on the ground of ineffective driving licence. It was specifically pleaded by the appellant-Insurance Company that in order to drive a transport vehicle, the driver has to possess a transport endorsement specifically entitling him to drive such vehicle and in absence of such authorization, the driving licence becomes in-effective and the appellant is not liable.

8. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the sides, held that it is for the Insurance Company to plead and prove that at the time of accident the particular vehicle was being used as a transport vehicle as per the decision reported in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., AIR 1999 S.C. 3181. The learned Single Judge observed that a mini truck is also a light motor vehicle and a person having licnece to drive a light motor vehicle can drive such vehicle provided that at the relevant time the mini truck was not being used as a transport vehicle and accordingly dismissed Misc. Appeal No. 285 of 1996 by judgment dated 25.10.2000 confirming the award passed by the claims tribunal. Hence this intra-Court appe