An insurer is liable for compensation when the driver possesses a valid driving license for a light motor vehicle, overriding the lower tribunal's erroneous liability assessment on the vehicle owner.

1. Subject matter of this appeal is judgment and award, dated 18th August, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hamirpur, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 31 of 2007, titled as Smt. Kaulan Devi versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and another, whereby compensation to the tune of 61,050 / ? with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimantinjured and ownercumdriver of the offending vehicle was saddled with liability (for short "the impugned award").

2. The insurer and claimantinjured have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them.

3. The appellant / ownercumdriver of the offending vehicle has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling him with liability.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant / ownercumdriver argued that the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 so far it relates to 'from whom' and issue No. 3 are not legally correct for the reason that the appellant / ownercumdriver of the offending vehicle was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (for short "LMV") and the offending vehicle was a LMV.

5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer argued that the appellant / ownercumdriver has not taken these grounds in the memo of appeal, thus, cannot press these grounds.

6. The argument of the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer, though attractive, is devoid of any force for the following reasons:

7. Granting of compensation is a social legislation and cannot be taken away by rigorous of procedural wrangles and tangles and the niceties, hypertechnicalities and mystic maybes have no role to play to defeat the social purpose of granting the compensation.

8. The proceedings instituted under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "MV Act") are to be taken to the logical end by following a summary procedure. S.173 of the MV Act also provides for remedy of appeal.

9. The appeal under S.173 of the MV Act is alike the appeal under S.96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC"). Therefore, the Court is under obligation to decide all issues arising in a case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence.

10. The Apex Court in U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Km. Mamta 2016 ACJ 699(SC), held that S.173 of the MV Act and the first appeal under S.96 CPC are alike and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case. It is profitable to reproduce paragraph 24 of the said judgment hereunder:
"24. An appeal under S.173 of the M.V.Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike S.96 of the Code and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence."

11. It is apt to record herein that Part VII of the CPC provides for filing of appeals arising out of decrees and orders. S.96 CPC provides for appeals from original decree. It is apt to reproduce S.96 CPC hereunder:
"96. Appeal from original decree.
1) Save where otherwise expressly provided in the body of this Code or by any other law for the time being in force, an appeal shall lie from every decree passed by any Court exercising original jurisdiction the Court authorized to hear appeals from the decisions of such Court.
(2) An appeal