The driving licence of the vehicle operator was legally valid at the time of the accident, and the Tribunal's erroneous conclusion of cancellation led to incorrect recovery rights granted to the insurer.

JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle against the award dated 22.02.2017 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, SAS Nagar, Mohali (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the appellant was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.11,79,000/- to the claimants along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till recovery.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 23.11.2014, when Sonia along with her father Om Parkash Singh was going on left hand of the road for her place of working i.e. Maya Garden, a Tata Sumo bearing registration No. HR-37A-7456 came from Zirakpur side being driven by respondent no.1 in a rash and negligent manner, brought his vehicle on extreme left side of the road in katcha portion and hit against Sonia, who suffered multiple injuries on her persona and succumbed to the same on the spot. Driver of offending vehicle alighted from the vehicle, but on seeing the people gathering at the spot, he slipped from the spot. Sonia was shifted to Civil Hospital, Dera Bassi, but she was declared dead. It was further pleaded that Sonia was unmarried, 20 years and 09 months of age. She was employed as computer operator with Maya Garden, Zirakpur and getting Rs. 15,000/- per month as salary.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents therein appeared and contested the claim petition by filing separate written statement denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

1. Whether Sonia died in a road side accident caused by respondent no.1 while driving vehicle no. HR-37A-7456? OPC

2. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable ? OPR

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to receive compensation , as prayed for, if so to what extent and from whom ? OPC

4. Whether respondent no.1 being driver of above said vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, route permit at the time of accident ? OPR-3

5. Whether respondent no.2 had committed breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, if so, its effect ? OPR-3.

6. Relief.

5. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimants. However, the respondent No.1-Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation at first instance and recovery rights were given to respondent No.1-Insurance Company to recover the same from appellant-owner of the offending vehicle. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant-owner of the offending vehicle has gravely erred in giving recovery right to the insurance company on erroneous premise that the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess the valid and effective licence at the time of accident. He further contends that the appellant has placed on record the driving licence of driver of the offending vehicle and the contents of the driving licence makes it abundantly clear that on the date of accident, the driving licence was effective and valid. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and respondent No.1-insurance company be held solely liable to pay compensation to claimant-respondent No.2 and 3.

8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-insurance company contends that the learned Tribunal has rightly decided the issue of liability, therefore, he prays for dismissal of the present ap