1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant - owner of the tractor assailing the judgment and award passed by the VIII Additional Small Causes Judge and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (SCCH 5), Bengaluru in MVC No. 6101 of 2011 dated 11.10.2013.

2. For the purpose of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the court below.

3. The brief facts leading to filing of the appeal are that the petitioner was returning from his coolie work on 25.4.2011 at about 4 p.m., near Shivanahalli and at that time a tractor bearing registration No. KA 51 - T 1299 came rashly and negligently at high speed and dashed against the petitioner and as a result of the same petitioner sustained multiple injuries and thereafter he was shifted to Victoria Hospital in an ambulance and after giving the first aid he was shifted to BGS Global Hospital wherein he was treated as an inpatient for the said injuries. It is further contended that he was working as an agricultural coolie and the entire family is dependent upon him and because of injuries he is unable to do the work as before and as such a claim petition came to be filed.

4. After issuance of the notice, the respondent No. 1, owner of the tractor, appeared and he filed his objections by contending that the said vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2 and the driver of the tractor was possessing a valid driving licence as on the date of accident and other contentions have been denied by the respondent No. 1.

5. Respondent No. 2, insurance company, has also filed the written statement by denying the contents of the petition. It is contended that though the said tractor has been insured with the said insurance company, the owner of the vehicle has allowed the person to drive the vehicle who was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor and trailer. He has also contended that there is breach of the conditions of the policy and as such insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation.

6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:
"(1) Whether the petitioner proves that on 25.4.2011 at about 4 p.m., near Shivanahalli, Jigani Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District, he met with an accident and sustained injuries due to actionable negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No. KA 51 - T 1299-1300?
(2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation as prayed?
(3) What order or award?"

7. In order to prove his case the petitioner himself got examined as PW 1 and got examined PW 2, the doctor who has treated him in BGS Global Hospital and also got marked 18 documents at Exhs. P1 to P18. On behalf of the respondent No. 2 it has examined the Executive Legal Adviser as RW 1 and got marked two documents at Exhs. R1 and R2. After closure of the evidence and after hearing the arguments of the parties to the lis, the Tribunal answered issue No. 1 in the affirmative and while answering issue No. 2 awarded a compensation of Rs. 12,77,000 with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum and the liability has been fixed on respondent No. 1. By assailing the said order the owner of the tractor is before this court.

8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, insurance company.

9. The main grounds urged by the learned counsel for the appellant are that the driver of the tractor and trailer was having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor as per Exh. R2 which has been produced by the insurance company. He has further contended that it is an admitted fact that the driver of the tractor was holding the licence to drive light motor vehicle, but the Tribunal, by holding that there is no endorsement to drive the tractor with trailer, has fastened the liability on the owner instead of fixing the liability on the insurance company. He has further contended that as per S.10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988