A driver with an LMV license is permitted to operate a Transport vehicle without additional authorization if the vehicle's weight is under 7500 kg.

JUDGMENT

The appellant/4^th respondent Insurance company has filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order made in W.C.No.172 of 2008, dated 30.12.2008, on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Madurai.

2.The parties are referred to herein as per their rank before the Tribunal, for easy reference.

3.The brief case of the claimant is as follows:-

On 18.1.2005, when the appellant is working in the first respondent’s auto bearing Registration No. TN 45 A 4068 near Sivagangai Ring Road, at that time, auto dashed against the bus bearing registration No. TN 01 6643 and he claimant had sustained bone fracture and head injuries and he had been taken treatment at Madurai Rajaji Hospital for ei\gtht days and then at a private hospital and thus his earning capacity had reduced considerably. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged 24 years and working with the first respondent and earned a sum of Rs.2000/- as monthly salary and also got other perks and claimed compensation from the respondents 1 and 2.

4.The first respondent filed a counter and accepted the employment, salary and other aspects. Further he would state that at the time of accident, the claimant had possessed valid driving licence and insured with the second respondent and hence the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation and hence the claim petition has to be dismissed in respect of the first respondent.

5.The second respondent fled a counter and denied the averments regarding employment, salary and other aspects. Further he would state that the claimant had possessed only license to drive light motor vehicle and did not possess badge for driving auto. Hence the first respondent alone is responsible for payment of compensation to the claimant. The claimant has to prove the averments mentioned in his claim petition and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. During trial, on the side of the petitioner, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked. On the side of the respondents, no evidence was adduced and no documents marked.

7.After hearing the parties and perusing the records, the Tribunal fixed the liability on the second respondent and awarded a total sum of Rs.1,11,889/- as compensation to the claimant.

8. Aggrieved by the said order, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance company who is the second respondent insurance company before the Tribunal against the liability fixed on them, with the following among other grounds:-

(i) That the Tribunal is bound to consider that a person holding a driving licence for non-transport vehicle, cannot be permitted to drive the Transport vehicle unless the licence is duly authorizes him to drive transport vehicles, as required under Rule 16 of driving licence.

(ii) That the Tribunal failed to appreciate that a person holding LMV licence is not to authorize to drive the commercial vehicle without the requisite endorsement by the competent Authorities. In the absence of such valid endorsement, the driver was not legally permitted to operate the vehicle. Therefore, prayed to set aside the order of the trial Court and allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

9.Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

10. Now, this Court has to decide the following point for consideration:-

1. Whether the driver holding a driving licence other than for a Transport vehicle was not authorised to drive the Transport vehicle without obtaining the requisite additional authorisation in Form 6 as mandate under Rule 16 of driving licence to drive transport vehicl