( 1. ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the claimant for claiming higher compensation owing to the injuries sustained by him in an accident dated 7-10-2000 and for saddling liability on the Oriental Insurance Co Ltd. 1st motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katni as per award dated 19-12-02 passed in claim Case No. 588/2000 has awarded compensation of Rs. 35,000 on account of fracture of clavicle bone sustained by the claimant along with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of filing claim petition till realization.

( 2. ) CLAIMANT Rambhagat, aged 25 years, filed a claim petition claiming compensation of Rs. 5,10,000. It was submitted that at about 11. 30 PM on 7-10-2000 when claimant was going on Hero Puch (MP-21b/4642) to Katni, he was dashed by a motor cycle (MP21-B/7934), driven by Jethanand Harwani. owned by Kailash Poptani and insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. He sustained fracture of clavicle and incurred permanent disability. Claim petition was filed on 21-12-2000 after about two months of the accident. ( 3. ) OWNER and driver remained ex parte before the Claims Tribunal. Insurer in the written statement contended that motorcycle was not involved in the accident, some unknown motorcyclist dashed Hero Puch as apparent from the documents of criminal case, report was lodged belatedly, only simple injuries were sustained, no disability certificate was filed with the claim petition. Jethanand was not having valid and effective driving licence, thus, insurer was not liable to make payment of compensation.

( 4. ) THE Claims Tribunal has found that accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of motor cycle by its driver Jethanand, he was having the licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle with effect from 25-9-2000, it was valid upto 4-10-2018, he was not having the licence to drive motorcycle, thus, insurer has been exonerated. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of rs. 35,000 to claimant, consequently this appeal has been preferred by the claimant.

( 5. ) SHRI Sharad Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for claimant/ appellant has submitted that owner has not violated any of the conditions of the policy, the person who drove motorcycle was holding the licence to drive Light motor Vehicle. He has placed reliance on a decision of Apex Court in National insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297, indicating that driver was an experienced driver. As driver was having licence to drive Light motor Vehicle, he was sufficiently experienced to drive the motorcycle. Thus, it could not be said to be a substantial breach on part of owner.

( 6. ) SHRI R. K. Samaiya, learned Counsel appearing for Insurer with Shri rajroot Patel has submitted holder of the licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle cannot be said to be authorised to drive the motor cycle with or without gear, thus, Jethanand, a holder of Light Motor Vehicle driving licence, had no authority to drive the Motorcycle.

( 7. ) THERE appears to be cleavage of opinion as to whether a person holding driving licence of Light Motor Vehicle can drive motorcycle with gear. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bharamappa Doddabirappa Pujari and another, 2005 ACJ 1509, High Court of Karnataka has considered Section 10 and has held that in Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act vehicles from the category

(a) to (j) have been mentioned in order of their laden weight of the vehicle. Thus, a person holding licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle cannot be permitted to drive medium goods vehicle of higher category, but he can drive an invalid carriage or motor cycle with or without gear. Karnataka High Court has relied upon decision of Madras High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. R. Jayalakshmi, 2002 ACJ 252 (Madras ). The question has been considered by karnataka High Court thus :-"20. Now, we can look at Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It shows types of vehicles in respect of which licence to ride or drive has to be obtained. They are