JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

CM-22686-CII-2014

1. This is an application filed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for exempting the appellant from depositing Rs.25,000/- during the pendency of the appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed.

FAO-8367-2014

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/driver of the offending vehicle against the award dated 29.04.2014 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short 'the Tribunal'), wherein the appellant/driver of the offending vehicle was fastened with the liability to pay the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- to the claimant/respondent No.1 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 9.9.2011 injured/claimant alongwith Sukhwinder Singh was going to deliver Suzuki Scooter No. PB-23G-1256(T) to a customer towards Khanna side. The claimant was driving the scooter and Sukhwinder Singh was pillion rider. Amrik Singh followed them on his bicycle. When they reached in front of Malwa hospital at 7-40 PM then in the mean time one truck bearing registration No. PB-10CF-1147 came from Gobindgarh side driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negligently without blowing any horn struck with the scooter of injured from back side. Due to the impact Manpreet Singh and Sukhwinder Singh fell down on the road and the left leg of the claimant was crushed under the wheel of truck. Sukhwinder Singh also received injuries due to the accident. The claimant was taken to Civil Hospital Khanna but due to serious leg injury, the claimant was referred to PGI Chandigarh where he remained admitted till 15.9.2011 and spent an amount of Rs. 5 lac on his treatment. Now an artificial leg is required for walking of the claimant. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1.

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 injured Manpreet Singh received injuries on account of accident caused by respondent No.1 while driving offending truck No. PB-10CF-1147 rashly and negligently? OPP

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation if so to what extent? OPP

3. Whether the petition is not maintainable ? OPR

4. Whether the claimant has no locus standi to file the present claim petition? OPR

5. Whether the petition is bad for non joinder of parties? OPR

6. Whether the respondent was snot holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident? OPR

7. Whether the alleged offending vehicle had not valid permit license and registration certificate for vehicle in question.?OPR

8. 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.3-Insurance Company was held liable to pay compensation at first instance and recovery rights were given to respondent No.3-Insurance Company to recover the same from appellant-driver of the offending vehicle. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant–driver of the offending vehicle contends that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the appellant was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. It is submitted that the licence possessed by the appellant authorised him to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV). The Tribunal, however, wrongly proceeded on the assumption that the offending vehicle was a “truck” requiring a separate endorsement. In fact, as is evide