A driver with a valid HMV licence can drive a transport vehicle under 7500 kg without separate endorsement, and the insurer must strictly prove any policy breach (like lack of permit) with cogent evidence to avoid liability.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle against the award dated 19.07.2016 passed in a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar (for short, 'the Tribunal'), wherein the claim petition filed by the claimant was allowed and appellant/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle was made liable to pay the compensation.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.11.2014 at about 4.00 PM. The petitioner has claimed that on 16.11.2014 at about 4.00 PM, he alongwith his son, Yaspal was going to Helimandi from Silani on his motor-cycle bearing registration no.HR-14D-6427, when they reached near Devi Mandir, Raipur maur, a tempo bearing registration no.HR-63B-7196 came from wrong side, driven in rash, negligent and zig-zag manner at a very high speed and directly hit in his motorcycle, due to which he fell down and received grievous injuries. He further pleaded that he was initially treated at Government Hospital, Jhajjar, and lateron referred to PGIMS Rohtak. He claimed the compensation on account of expenditure on medical treatment, transportation, disability, pain and suffering, loss of income etc. Claim is made against respondent no.1 Om Parkash, being the driver and owner, and respondent no.2 National Insurance Company Ltd., being the insurer.

3. Upon notice of the claim petition, respondents appeared and contested the claim petition by filing their separate written replies denying the factum of accident/compensation.

4. From the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether the accident, resulting into the injuries sustained by Balram son of Sh. Chanderbhan had taken place due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle i.e. tempo bearing registration no. HR-63B-7196 by respondent no.1? OPP.

2. If issue no. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether the respondent no.1 was not holding valid driving license on the date of alleged accident and whether respondent no.1 has contravened the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy, if so its effect? OPR-2.

4. Relief. ”

5. Thereafter, both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

6. After taking into consideration the pleadings and the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the claimant and appellant/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle was held liable to pay compensation. Hence, the present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle contends that the learned Tribunal has committed a manifest error in fastening liability upon the appellant to pay compensation to the claimant/respondent No. 1. It is submitted that the finding of the Tribunal is premised on an erroneous assumption that the appellant did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to operate the offending vehicle, i.e., a three-wheeler. In this regard, it is argued that the appellant was duly holding a valid driving licence authorizing him to drive a heavy motor vehicle, and the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the scope and validity of the said licence.

8. He further contends that th