JUDGMENT :

1. The present appeal is filed at the instance of the Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 20.06.2016, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Special), Rajkot in MACP No. 626 of 2005. By the said judgment and award the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 holding them entitled to recover amount of Rs. 8,03,551/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of such claim petition till its actual realization, from the original opponents jointly and severally with proportionate costs.

2. The appeal preferred by the appellant insurance company is mainly on the issue of liability on the grounds with regard to quantum of compensation being determined on higher side and issue of negligence has also been raised. Considering the grounds raised in the appeal memo and submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company, this Court vide order dated 06.10.2016, while admitting the appea,l had directed the appellant-Insurance Company to deposit entire award amount to the concerned Tribunal and had thereby stayed the impugned judgment and award pending the appeal. The further directions were issued to the Tribunal to disburse 30% of the amount in terms of the award in favour of the claimants and invest remaining 70% of the amount in fixed deposit scheme with any nationalized bank with periodical interest permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants. The FDRs were directed to be renewed from time to time and were made subject to the outcome of the present appeal.

3. The respondents-original claimants being duly served with the admission of appeal, had appeared through learned advocate and had preferred cross-objection mainly seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal also raising the ground of 10% negligence being wrongly attributed to the deceased. The cross- objection, were admitted and directed to be heard with the First Appeal vide order dated 23.02.2017.

4. The First Appeal and cross-objections being notified for final hearing were finally heard. The record reveals that the advocate notice issued upon original claimants were duly served, however, no appearance has been entered. With the able assistance of learned advocate for the appellant- Insurance Company, the appeal was finally heard and is decided by this common judgment.

5 Learned advocate Mr. Sunil Parikh appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company has assailed the impugned judgment and award and the issue of liability by submitting that the Tribunal committed grave error in holding the appellant-Insurance Company liable to pay the amount of compensation ignoring the fact that the driver of the Tata mobile mid size pick up track bearing registration No.GJ- 3.Y-6823, was holding driving license to drive light motor vehicle which was in force from 18.11.2003 to 17.11.2023. He has further pointed out that the license produced on record at Exh. 61 clearly shows that the driver was holding license for a non-transport vehicle and there was no endorsement of transport vehicle. The driver was, therefore, not entitled to drive the commercial vehicle.

6. Considering the aforesaid submissions in response to the query put by this Court with regard to the legal position, learned advocate had fairly conceded to the settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rambha Devi and ORs, reported at 2025 (3) SCC 95 Learned advocate had invited my attention to the R.C book produced on record at Exh. 39 and has submitted that considering the nature of vehicle being described as light carriage vehicle and having cubic capacity of 2956 CC, it would be in the category of light motor vehicle. He has therefore, submitted that in view of the judgmen