The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, even in cases where the driver's driving license has expired, and the obligation of the owner to ensure a valid driving license for the driver.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Vide this common order, FAO No.1748 of 2001 titled Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ravinder Kumar and FAO No.3548 of 2001 titled Ravinder Kumar Vs. Jangsher Singh and Others are being disposed of. Common facts are being noticed.

2. Ravinder Kumar filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation on account of injuries received by him in a vehicular accident on 03.12.1996. The accident took place when the claimant was going to Dosarka in jeep bearing registration No.HR-0A-8412. He was driving the jeep at a moderate speed and on the left side of the road. One Dharam Pal was sitting on front seat by the side of the driver. At about 6 PM, when they reached near the Sugar Cane Centre, Mullana, a tractor bearing registration No.HR-02B-9047 came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner. The tractor was being driven by Jangsher Singh. In the meantime, a cow suddenly came on the road and in order to save the cow, Jangsher Singh turned the tractor towards the side of the jeep and he lost the control over the tractor and dashed into the jeep. As a result of which, Ravinder Kumar received multiple injuries and the jeep was also badly damaged. Claimants suffered multiple fractures i.e. fracture of right hip, thigh, knee and fracture on his legs. The thumb of his left hand was amputated. The injured was taken to Kohli Hospital, Jagadhari. Keeping in view his seriousness, he was referred to PGI, where he remained admitted for long time. Claimant pleaded that he had spent about Rs. 40,000/- on his medical treatment till the date of filing of the claim petition. The claimant was running a shop at Dosarka and was earning Rs. 8000/- per month. Due to his injuries and confinement to bed, he was incapacitated of doing his work. The claimant staked his claim for Rs. 12 lacs for the injuries suffered by him.

3. The Insurance Company did not take any specific stand. On the one hand, the accident was denied and at the same time, it was pleaded that the accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the jeep. The collusion was pleaded between the driver and owner of the tractor. The other grounds were also taken that even if the accident is proved, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation as the tractor was being driven by a person who was not holding any valid and effective driving licence and the same was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The driver and owner of the tractor were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 02.02.1998. They did not prefer to file even written statement.

4. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short 'the Tribunal') held that the accident in question took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the tractor/offending vehicle. The claimant appeared as PW 1 and proved the factum of receiving injuries by him in the said accident. The Tribunal on assessment of material on record found that injured had spent an amount of Rs. 63,000/- towards transportation and the claimant was entitled to a sum of Rs. 4,22,300/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by him under different heads. The Tribunal has found that the injured remained hospitalized for 99 days. He was discharged from the hospital, but he was not properly cured. He was again admitted in PGI and remained admitted for 55 days for the second time. He was operated five times and thumb of his left hand was amputated. After discharge from the hospital, the injured attending PGI for follow up treatment and visited the hospital for 40 times by incurring taxi fare on each occasion. The Tribunal has assessed an amount of Rs. 40,000/- towards transportation keeping in view the distance between the place of his residence and PGI. The claimant was permanently disabled to the tune of 65% on account of injuries suffered by him. Prior to the accident, he was running a shop and was earning Rs. 8000/- p