JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J.

CM-7836-CII-2014

1. This is an application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 67 days in filing the appeal.

2. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and delay of 67 days in filing the present appeal is condoned.

MAIN CASE

1. The present appeal has been filed by the owner/driver of the offending vehicle challenging the finding on issue No.3 given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal') vide its award dated 13.11.2013.

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF THE CASE:-

2. In the present case, respondent Nos.2 and 3-claimants had filed the claim petition for seeking compensation on account of death of their son in a motor vehicular accident which took place on 25.05.2012. The deceased-Ajay Singh was stated to be going on a motorcycle and the present appellant was stated to be driving the offending vehicle Max IMO Mahendra and Mahendra bearing registration No.HR-47B-4374. On 10.12.2012, the Tribunal had framed the following issues:-

'1) Whether the accident in question was caused by respondent no. 1 while driving vehicle bearing registration no. HR-47B 4374 in a rash and negligent manner resulting into the death of Ajay Singh, as alleged ? OPP.

2) If issue no.1 is proved, whether the claimants are entitled to any compensation and if so to what extent and from whom? OPP.

3) Whether respondent no. 2 is not liable to make payment of any compensation on account of alleged violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy? OPR (2)

4) Relief'

3. Under Issue No.1, the Tribunal had observed that the present appellant while driving Max IMO Mahendra and Mahendra vehicle in a rash and negligent manner caused the death of Ajay Singh. The said issue has not been challenged before this Court. Under Issue No.2, the claimants were held entitled to a total amount of compensation of Rs.3,65,000/- along with interest which aspect has also not been challenged before this Court. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that the Insurance Company has already paid the said amount to the claimants and thus, the claimants are not the necessary parties to be heard before adjudicating the present case. It has also been jointly submitted that only issue which requires adjudication in the present case is as to whether the Insurance Company has a right to recover the amount of compensation from the present appellant, who is the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. Thus, the challenge is only with respect to the findings on issue No.3.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT:-

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the said issue is now squarely covered by the judgment of the Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co.Ltd vs. Rambha Devi and others reported as 2025(3) SCC 95. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has now held that the drivers holding the licence for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles of which the gross vehicle weight is under 7,500 kg, are permitted to operate a 'Transport Vehicle' without needing additional authorization under Section 10(2)(e) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the MV Act'). It is submitted that in the present case, it is not in dispute that the present appellant was having a driving licence with endorsement of Light Motor Vehicle and same has been exhibited as Ex.R1. It is further submitted that a perusal of the Certificate of Registration Ex.R3 as well as Register of motor vehicle Ex.R4 clearly show that gross weight of the vehicle in question i.e., Max IMO Mahendra and Mahendra was 1800 kg and unladen weight was 950 kg and that since the said vehicle was a 'transport vehicle' as defined under Section 2(47) of the MV Act, thus, the driving licence in favour of the present appellant also permitted him to drive th