The insurer's liability is upheld when the driver's license meets the statutory requirements for operating the vehicle in question.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the insurance company/3rd respondent in O.P (MV) No.1080 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-III, Kozhikode, seeking for a right to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. The respondents herein are the respondents 1 and 2 before the tribunal.

2. The facts of the case are as follows :- On 01.05.2014 at about

07.15 pm, while the deceased was going in a bicycle, a jeep bearing registration No.KL-10-D-8374 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the bicycle. As a result of the accident, the deceased had sustained serious injuries and later succumbed to the injuries. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹15,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent/owner and second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed. It is further contended that the 2^nd respondent was not having a valid driving licence authorising him to drive the transport vehicle and hence the 1^st respondent has violated the policy conditions. Before the tribunal, Pw1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A13 and Exts.B1 to B3 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹9,90,400/- rounded to ₹9,91,000/- as compensation under different heads with interest @9% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle. Challenging the liability to pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the third respondent/insurance company has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the appellant/insurer and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. When the case is taken up today, the learned senior standing counsel appearing for the insurance company, fairly submitted that the ground raised by the insurance company in the appeal is covered against them in the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (M/s.) v. Rambha Devi [2024 KHC 6607], wherein it was held that “a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) license holder can drive a transport vehicle weighing less than 7,500 kgs without requiring separate endorsement”. In the present case the vehicle involved in the accident was a jeep, the gross weight of which was less than 7500 kgs.

Thus, following the judgment in Rambha Devi (supra), I find that this fails and accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

Sd/-