A driver possessing a valid driving licence for a tractor remains authorized to drive that vehicle even if a trailer is attached, and the insurer cannot disclaim liability on the ground of the trailer attachment.

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

1. These Miscellaneous First Appeals are filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘M.V.Act, 1988” for short) which arise out of the judgment and award dated 26.10.2013, passed in MVC No.106/2012 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Hubballi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’ for short).

2. Brief facts, leading rise to the filing of this appeal, are as follows:

3. On 06.09.2011, at about 9.45 a.m., the claimant was proceeding in a Tata Ace vehicle bearing Reg.No.KA-26/4939 as a coolie from Hadagali to Bannikoppa. The driver of the said vehicle was driving the same in a moderate speed on the left side of the road. When the vehicle came near the accident spot, one tractor and trailer bearing Reg.No.KA-26/T-6369/6370 came in a rash and negligent manner, lost control over the same, and dashed to the rear portion of the Tata Ace vehicle. Due to the said impact, the claimant sustained grievous injuries. The claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V.Act seeking compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident. Accordingly, prays to allow the claim petition.

4. The owner of the tractor and trailer did not file any statement of objections.

5. Both the Insurance Companies filed a statement of objections denying the averments made in the claim petition, and also contented that the claimant has not made out any claim against the respondent Nos.3 and 4. It is contented that the driver of the tractor and trailer did not possess a valid and effective driving license as of the date of accident. Hence, prays to dismiss the claim petition against the Insurance Companies.

6. The Tribunal, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the relevant issues.

7. The claimant to substantiate his case, the claimant was examined as P.W.1, examined the doctor as P.W.2, and marked 18 documents as Exs.P1 to P18. Conversely, the officials of the Insurance Companies were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2, and marked 4 documents as Exs.R1 to R4.

8. The Tribunal, after assessing the verbal and documentary evidence, allowed the claim petition in part vide judgment dated 26.10.2013, and awarded a compensation of Rs.4,26,560/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of the petition till realization of the entire amount, and held that respondent Nos.1 and 5 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Further, the claim petition against respondent Nos.2 to 4 was dismissed.

9. The owner of the tractor and trailer, aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal filed appeal in MFA No.101456/2021 challenging the liability, and the claimant being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal filed the appeal in MFA No.102476/2017 seeking enhancement of the compensation.

10. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the owner of the tractor and trailer, learned counsel for the claimant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company.

11. Learned counsel for the owner of the tractor and trailer submits that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving licence to drive the tractor and trailer, and has produced the driving licence of the driver of the tractor and trailer. He submits that when the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid and effective driving licence, the Tribunal could have fastened the liability on the Insuranc