A driver holding a valid license for a light motor vehicle is authorized to drive a transport vehicle of that class, including a tractor, provided the gross vehicle weight does not exceed 7500 kilograms. The insurer cannot avoid liability for technical license breaches without proving a causal nexus.

JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants (driver and owner of the offending vehicle) against award dated 13.01.2015 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sonepat (for short 'the Tribunal'), wherein the appellants (driver and owner of the offending vehicle) were fastened with the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- to the claimants/respondents No.2 to 9 along with interest @ 7.5% 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 17.04.2012 the deceased was going to his village Sirsadh from Gohana Mandi after selling his wheat on his motorcycle bearing No. HR-12E-3243. At about 7.15 pm one Eicher tractor bearing No. HR-31G-4592 being driven by respondent No. 1 came from opposite side in a rash and negligent manner and with fast speed and struck against the motorcycle of the deceased. As a result of which accident occurred and deceased sustained injuries. The deceased was shifted to General Hospital, Gohana by the complainant after arranging a vehicle and the concerned doctor after giving first-aid, referred deceased to PGIMS, Rohtak where he died in PGIMS, Rohtak on the same day i.e. on 17.04.2012 due to the injuries sustained in the said accident and the accident had taken place due to sole rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.1 and on the statement of complainant, an FIR No.65 dated 18.04.2012 under Section 279, 304-A of IPC was registered in police station, Sadar, Gohana. It is stated that the accident had taken place due to sole and negligent driving of the respondent No.1.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents No.1 and 2 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 the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of tractor bearing registration No. HR- 31G-4592 by its driver-respondent No. 1 on 17.04.2012 within the jurisdiction of police station, Sadar, Gohana, resulting into death of Karan Singh, as alleged ? OPP.

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in the affirmative to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether the claim petition is not maintainable and petitioners have no cause of action and locus-standi to file the present claim petition? OPR-1 & 2.

4. Whether the respondent No. 1. was not holding valid and effective driving lidence at the time of alleged accident if so its effect? OPR-3.

5. Whether the respondent No. 1 was driving the vehicle i.e. tractor bearing registration No. HR-31G/4592 in violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy? 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 claimant. 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 appellants (driver and owner of the offending vehicle). Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

7. Learned counsel