The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the definition of 'light motor vehicle' and 'transport vehicle' under the Motor Vehicles Act, and the implications for liability and compensation in cases of accidents involving such vehicles.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The appellant, to the present Appeal from Order, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, is a registered owner of the vehicle, which was a Mini Truck, bearing registration number as U.P.-04A-0561 Tata- 407, which was said to be involved in the accident, which chanced on 23.11.2005, on Bareilly Road, near Rithora Petrol Pump, resulting into the death of the deceased Vishwanath Mandal.

2. The Claimants have filed a Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 184 of 2006, Smt. Suwasini Mandal and others Vs. Vijay Kumar Das, on 27.07.2006, before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, District Udham Singh Nagar, wherein, the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, had partly allowed the claim and, thereafter, had rendered an award on 21.02.2008 of Rs. 59,500/-, which has been directed to made payable by the present appellant, along with the interest @ 7% on it, on the ground that the vehicle was being plied, contrary to the terms of the licence, and the registration granted in favour of the vehicle, in question, besides also that the driver was not having a valid driving licence, and the vehicle was not licensed on the date when the accident chanced, and the following points of determination were framed:-

^^i{kdkjksa ds vfHkopuksa ds v/kkj ij fuLrkj.k gsrq fuEufyf[kr okn&fcUnq fojfpr fd;s x;s%&
1& D;k iz'uxr nq?kZVuk fnukWd 23@11@2005 dks le; 10-00 cts ogn fjBkSjk iSVªkSy iEi ls vkxs cjsyh jksM Fkkuk gkfQtxat cjsyh m0iz0 esa tc e`rd fo'oukFk eaMy mQZ fo'kqeaMy Vªd feuh VkVk&407 jft0 ua0 ;w0ih0&04,&0561 ls lCth ykndj vius ?kj dks cjsyh vk jgk Fkk rks mDr Vªd ds pkyd dh rsth o ykijokgh ls iz'uxr okgu pykus ds dkj.k okgu iyV x;k ftlls e`rd dks xaHkhj pksVsa vkbZ vkSj bZykt gsrq cjsyh ys tk;s tkus ij mldh jkLrs esa ekSr gks xbZ] ;fn gkW rks izHkko\
2& D;k iz”uxr nq?kZVuk ds fnukWd o le; ij iz'uxr feuh Vªd ds pkyd ds ikl oS/k MªkbZfoax ykblsal ugha Fkk rFkk iz'uxr okgu chfer ugha Fkk] ;fn gkW rks izHkkWo\
3& ;kphx.k dksbZ izfrdj izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh gS] ;fn gkW rks fdl foi{kh ls vkSj fdruk\^^

3. The brief facts, which engages consideration are that on 23rd November, 2005, at about 10:00 a.m., the truck, in question, the details of which, has been given above, was being driven and the deceased was said to be travelling on the said truck with the loaded vegetables, and was moving towards his residence, when it lost balance and had overturned and on account of the said accident, the deceased suffered grievous injuries and later on when he was taken to the Bareilly Hospital, on the way, but unfortunately, he met with the sad demise. The post mortem was conducted on the deceased and, as a consequence thereto, the claimants have filed the Claim Petition, contending thereof that the deceased, who was working as a Labourer, and was engaged in loading and unloading of the vegetables which were often be carried on it, and used to earn about Rs.3,000/- p.m. and since at the time of his death, he was of 30 years of age and he was enjoying a very healthy physique and his life expectancy, was also quite long and hence, an appropriate compensation may be determined in their favour, who were the heirs of the deceased and dependent on him.

4. The respondents to the claim petition, under Section 166/140 of the Motor Vehicles Act were noticed. The owner of the vehicle has filed the written statement, paper No. 14 Kha, wherein, though a very limited ground has been taken, pertaining to the shifting of liability to pay the compensation on the Insurance Company; on the pretext that the Driver of the vehicle on the ill fated day, was driving the vehicle with utmost care and precaution, but on account of a sudden bend, the truck lost its balance and had overturned, resulting into an accident, but since on the date of the accident, i.e. on 23.11.2005, the vehicle was being driven under the valid licence and registration and the Insurance of the vehicle was also valid, if at all, the liability was to be fastened, it was to be fastened on the