The central legal point established in the judgment is that the insurer cannot disown its liability solely because the driver's license was not endorsed to drive a specific type of vehicle when the driver had a valid and effective license to drive a different type of vehicle.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. This Appeal impugns the Judgment and Award dated 12.07.2016 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, East Sikkim at Gangtok (for short “Claims Tribunal”), in MACT Case No. 26 of 2015, directing the Appellant/Insurer to pay a sum of Rs.4,62,380/- (Rupees four lakhs, sixty-two, three-hundred and eighty) only, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the said sum to the Respondent/Claimant, from the date of filing of the Claim Petition i.e. 7.7.2015, till full and final realisation.

2. The Appellant was the Opposite Party No.2, the Respondent No.1 herein, was the Claimant and the Respondent No.2 was the Opposite Party No.1 respectively, before the learned Claims Tribunal.

3. The parties herein shall be referred to in terms of their appearance before the learned Claims Tribunal.

4. The only ground pressed in Appeal is that the deceased, Driver of the vehicle, was authorized to drive only a Light Motor Vehicle (Non Transport), but he was unauthorisedly driving a Light Motor Vehicle (Transport), which met with the accident leading to his death. That, the deceased having violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the learned Claims Tribunal ought not to have ordered the Appellant to pay the aforestated compensation computed by it.

5. To appreciate the matter in its correct perspective, we may briefly traverse through the facts. The deceased, Bhim Raj Biswakarma, the son of the Claimant was returning to Mangshila, North Sikkim from Gangtok on 29.1.2014, driving the vehicle, a TATA Sumo Gold, bearing registration No. SK-03/J/0441 with gross weight of 2600 kilograms. At around 10:30 p.m., the vehicle met with an accident at Tenek Ramthang Jhora, near Mangshila, North Sikkim, whereby the deceased succumbed to his injuries on the spot. The matter was reported by one Phurba T. Lachungpa to the Mangan Police Station on 30.1.2014, and a case was duly registered under Section 279/304A IPC. The Claimant filed Petition under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the Act”), seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.8,59,320/- (Rupees eight lakhs, fifty-nine thousand, three hundred and twenty) only. This was duly contested by the Opposite Party No.2. The learned Claims Tribunal on consideration of the evidence and documents on record, awarded compensation amounting to Rs.4,62,380/- (Rupees four lakhs, sixty-two thousand, three-hundred and eighty) only, and ordered the Opposite Party No.2 to make good the compensation to the Claimant.

6. Before this Court, O.P. No.2 (Appellant) reiterated that the driver was not authorized to drive the vehicle being in possession of a licence to drive a non-transport vehicle, while the accident vehicle was a commercial vehicle. Hence, O.P. No.2 could not be saddled with the liability. Per contra, the Respondent No.1 (Claimant) argued that the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi and Others, (2008) 3 SCC 464 (decided on 22.01.2008), lays down the law on this count which applies to the facts and circumstances herein.

7. I have considered the submissions put forth by learned Counsel and perused the documents on record and the impugned Judgment.

8. Section 163A of the Act, under which the Claim Petition was filed, is a special provision for computing compensation on a structured formula as provided in the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to extend benefit to the family of a victim or injured person, falling within the income group upto Rs.40,000/- (Rupees forty thousand) only, per annum. In a claim for compensation under Section 163 A, the claimant is not required to plead or establish that the death or permanent disablement pertaining to which the claim has been made, was due to any unlawful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles conc