The court ruled that a driving license for a 'transport vehicle' includes authorization to drive a 'heavy goods vehicle', making the insurer liable for compensation.

JUDGMENT

1. The short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether possessor of a licence to drive a non-transport light motor vehicle (LMV NT) as well as transport vehicle (trans) is authorized to drive a heavy goods vehicle.

2. Heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Gan Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurance company. Despite service of notice, original claimants did not turn up.

3. Factual context of the case is as under:

Pabitra Debbarma died in a road traffic accident which occurred at Longtharai Hill, Ambassa on 20.08.2012 at about 4 O' clock in the afternoon. Offending truck bearing registration No. NL-01K-1263 was on its way from manu to Ambassa. The deceased was an Assistant of the vehicle. He received fatal injuries by falling on the road from the vehicle. Immediately, he was taken to Kulai hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. After the matter was reported to police, Ambassa P. S. Case No. 54 of 2012 under Sections 279 and 304A IPC was registered. In police investigation, accused driver of the vehicle was found guilty and charge sheet was laid against him for having committed offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A IPC.

4. His parents, Sri Suku Debbarma and Smt. Swarnamala Debbarma claimed compensation of a sum of Rs.12,00,000/-(rupees twelve lakhs) by filing a petition under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988. In their petition they impleaded the owner of the vehicle as respondent No.1 and the insurer as respondent No.2.

5. The claimants pleaded that their son died at the age of 25 years due to the negligence of the accused driver. The owner of the vehicle asserted that his vehicle had a valid registration. Even the driver had a valid driving licence and moreover, the vehicle was insured and insurance policy was in force on the date of occurrence. The owner, therefore, claimed that liability of paying compensation, if any, would be borne by the insurance company. The insurance company (respondent No.2) also appeared and pleaded that liability of the company in paying compensation would arise only in the event of submission of valid documents by the owner including a valid insurance policy.

6. In view of the pleadings of the parties, trial court framed two issues:

Whether Pabitra Debbarma died as a result of negligent driving of the offending vehicle and whether his parents were entitled to any compensation for the accidental death of their son and if so, who would be held liable to pay the compensation?

7. In the course of trial, the claimants examined only one witness viz. PW-1 and adduced certified copy of the FIR, post mortem report, charge sheet, age proof of the deceased etc. which were taken into evidence and marked as exhibits. The owner of the offending vehicle on the other hand examined himself as OPW-1 and submitted documents viz. original registration certificate of his vehicle, insurance policy, driving licence of accused driver Mitan Dey etc. which were also taken into evidence and marked as Exbt. A, B and C respectively. The insurance company, however, did not adduce any evidence at all.

8. On appreciation of evidence, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (No.3), West Tripura, Agartala awarded a sum of Rs.13,90,000/- along with 9% annual interest thereon to the claimants by judgment and order dated 27.05.2016 delivered in T.S(MAC) 430 of 2012. Tribunal held that the driver was authorized to drive light motor vehicle whereas the vehicle involved in the instant case was a truck. Therefore, the tribunal held that since there was a breach of the insurance policy, the insurer would not be held