The court affirmed that a driver must possess a valid license for the vehicle type, and the insurance company can recover compensation paid if the driver is found liable.

CAV Judgment

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant insurance company against the award 10.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Mahasamund in Claim Case No.69/2016, whereby claim of the claimants has been partly allowed and they were awarded Rs.9,77,200/- as compensation and the liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon the appellant insurance company.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a road mishap occurred on 22.10.2015 at 8 pm on Phuseradıh -Sirpur Road while a Dumper (Truck) bearing No.C.G04-G-3471 driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver namely Manohar Dhruv (R-7 herein) coming from opposite direction caused dash to a Motorcycle bearing No.C.G04-KY-7922 driven by one Mohit with a pillion rider by name Tiknu Khaivar resulting which alleged Driver of Motorcycle Mohit sustained grievous injuries and immediately taken to District Hospital Mahasamund wherefrom he was taken to Narayna Hospital, Raipur wherefrom he was further taken to Medical College Hospital Raipur for treatment and case police case was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Subsequently, the family of the injured filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal, which was allowed and the claimants were awarded Rs.9,77,200/- as compensation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned award is perverse, illegal and contrary to law. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal suffers from perversity being contrary to pleadings and evidence on record and as such the same is liable to be set aside. The driver of the offending vehicle was not having driving licence for transport vehicle and as per driving licence (Ex-D/2), the driver was not having effective driving licence for the period 01.03.2014 to 29.11,2015, whereas the incident is of 22.10.2015, as such the policy conditions of the insurance company have been breached, but despite the same the liability to pay compensation has been fastened upon the appellant insurance company. The deceased who was driving motor cycle at the time of accident in question did not also possess Driving License but he was riding on motorcycle carrying a pillion rider too, but the said aspects of the matter have been ignored by the learned Tribunal, as such the appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by this Court in MAC No.1295/2016 vide judgment dated 30.07.2024 in case of Branch Manager vs Patthar Singh and others and other connected matters.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 6 supports the impugned award and submits that the learned Tribunal has minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly fastened liability upon the appellant insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants. Therefore, this appeal is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.8 supports the impugned award.

6. No one appears on behalf of the respondent No.7 despite service of notice.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

8. The learned Tribunal framed issue Nos.2 & 3 as under:-

9. The learned Trial Court found in para 16 that the driving licence of the driver was not valid and effective for transport vehicle on the date of incident i.e. on 22.10.2015 but he possessed the valid licence for non transport vehicle. The learned Tribunal on the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Mukund Dewas vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2017 (4) TAC 11 (SC), found that a person who possesses light motor vehicle licence can driver the transport vehicle, but in this case it is clear that as per registration certificate (Ex-D/2), gross vehicle weight (gvw) is 16200 kg.

10. This Court in the matter of Patthar Singh (supra) held in 10 as under:-

“10. So far as the order of “pay and recover” is concerned, Hon’ble Supreme Court