JUDGMENT

Appellant-Insurer challenges the judgment and award passed by MACT-V, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru City in MVC No.4805/2011, dated 07.06.2012.

2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred according to their ranks before the Tribunal.

3. The factual matrix necessary for disposal of this appeal can be stated in nutshell to the effect that on 31.03.2011, while Smt. Jyothi was crossing the road near Housing Board Colony, Magadi Main Road, driver of Ambulance bearing registration No.KA 06 G 607 came from Kamakshipalya and dashed against her, due to which she sustained severe injuries and was shifted to Victoria Hospital for treatment. She suffered permanent disability due to accidental injuries and incurred heavy medical expenses. Therefore, prayed for grant of compensation.

4. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company alone contested and filed written statement denying that accident occurred due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of Ambulance bearing registration No.KA 06 G 607. The age, occupation and income of injured is also denied. The offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.2. The insured has violated the conditions of policy since the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license and as there is breach of policy conditions, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation.

Hence, prayed for dismissal of the petition.

5. The claimant relied on evidence of PW.1 and documents Exs.P.1 to P.7. Respondent No.2 relied on the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and document at Ex.R.1. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, has partly allowed the claim petition and fastened the liability to pay compensation on respondent No.2-Insurance Company.

6. The Insurer is questioning the order of Tribunal in fastening liability to pay compensation contending that owner of Ambulance bearing registration No.KA 06 G 607 has entrusted the vehicle to a person who was not having valid driving license to drive the vehicle. Hence, there is breach of policy condition and as such, Insurance Company cannot be made liable to pay compensation.

7. Heard the arguments of both sides.

8. The accident occurred on 31.03.2011, while Smt.Jyothi was crossing the road, due to actionable negligence on the part of driver of Ambulance bearing registration No.KA 06 G 607 and as a result, she suffered accidental injuries and same is not in dispute. The appeal is only confined to the extent of fastening liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation.

9. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company contended that the driver of Ambulance was not having valid and effective driving license as on the date of accident. The driver of vehicle had license to drive LMV Non-Transport from 02.07.2005 till 01.07.2006 and LMV-Transport only till 29.08.2009. The driver of Ambulance did not have license to drive transport vehicle as on the date of accident. Therefore, respondent No.2 is not liable to pay compensation. The driving license is produced as per Ex.R.2 and license was valid till 29.08.2009.

10. In this context of the matter, it is profitable to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 2017 SC Page 3668, Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, wherein it has been held that driver holding LMV license can drive all vehicles of that class including transport vehicles, no separate endorsement is required to drive such transport vehicles. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2018 ACJ Page No.976, Sant Lal vs. Rajesh and others, wherein it has been held that driver holding license to drive LMV can drive transport vehicle of LMV class and no separate endorsement is needed since tractor attached with trolley is a transport vehicle which falls under category of LMV, thereby fastened liability on Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

11. In the present case on hand, admittedly the driver of Ambulance was having valid driving license as per Ex.R.2 as on the date of accident.