A driving license for Light Motor Vehicles (four-wheelers) does not authorize the operation of a two-wheeler, as they belong to different vehicle classes. This violation constitutes a breach of insurance policy, entitling the insurer to recover the compensation paid to the claimant from the vehicle owner.

ORDER :

PAVAN KUMAR DWIVEDI, J

The appellant/Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act being aggrieved by the award dated 08.08.2011 passed in Claim Case No.43/2009 challenging the liability imposed upon it for payment of compensation.

2. Short facts of the case are that on 24.06.2009 deceased Mangalabai was going on motorcycle No.MP-09-MR-1102 as a pillion rider, respondent No.2 Prakash Rao was riding the same in rash and negligent manner as per the contents of the claim petition. When they reached near Musakhedi Ring Road, Pink City, accident occurred as another motorcycle dashed into the motorcycle of Prakash Rao, respondent No.2. Deceased Mangalabai sustained grievous injuries in the accident and died because of the same.

2.1 The respondent No.1 filed claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of Mangalabai. The claims Tribunal after recording evidence awarded total compensation of Rs.85,000/- to the respondent No.1.

3. The Insurance Company has come before this Court on two grounds; (i) there was complete absence of any material to show rash and negligent driving of the rider of motorcycle No.MP-09-MR-1102 (insured vehicle); and (ii) the rider Prakash Rao was not having valid driving license for riding the motorcycle. He, thus submits that on any count the Insurance Company could not have been saddled with the liability to pay compensation. In support of his submissions he referred to para Nos.13 and 14 and submits that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.2. He has placed reliance on Ex.P/2 the FIR and closure report, which was registered in Police Station, Sanyogitaganj, Indore in which statement of respondent No.2 and Ashish were recorded during Marg investigation. He points out that para No.13 and 14 itself would show that it was the unknown motorcycle, which was being driven in rash and negligent manner and not the motorcycle driven by respondent No.2. In the statements recorded in Marg intimation and in criminal case there is no whisper of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2. He, thus submits that in absence of rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No.2 Prakash Rao the Insurance Company could not have been held liable to pay compensation in the case.

3.1 He points out that in para 21 of the impugned award the claims Tribunal has considered the second plea raised by the appellant/Insurance Company in as much as on the date of accident the respondent No.2 was not holding a valid driving license for riding the motorcycle. He submits that Insurance Company called one Bhaiyalal Dwivedi, Assistant Grade II (AW- 1) from the R.T.O., Indore, who brought with himself license of Prakash Rao, according to which license No.P-32454/97 was issued to him valid from 8.1.1997 to 30.10.2005. It was issued for Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) with an endorsement of professional. The witness admitted before the Tribunal that there is no endorsement of motorcycle on the license of respondent No.2. He brought with him the original record also i.e. license card of the respondent No.2 Ex.D/1, its photocopy Ex.D/1C and original record Ex.D/2 and its photocopy Ex.D/2C. The Tribunal recorded findings in para 23 that the respondent No.2 has a valid driving license for driving the Light Motor Vehicle. After recording this finding the claims Tribunal discarded the contention of the Insurance Company that there was no endorsement of motorcycle, thus he was not eligible to drive motorcycle by placing reliance on the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Srinivasagowda and another Vs. Sannamma and others , reported 1 (2011) ACC 416, wherein it was held that as the driver in that case having HMV license, it was considered that he was having valid license for riding scooter also. He submits that the claims Tribunal has completely ignored that the facts of the said case were different a