A person holding a valid driving license for a 'light motor vehicle' (LMV) is authorized to drive a transport vehicle, provided its gross vehicle weight or unladen weight does not exceed 7,500 kg, as per Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Judgment

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company (for short 'appellant') under section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award dated 07.10.2003, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Ajmer (for short 'Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.601/1999, whereby the claim petition filed by the respondents-claimants (for short ‘claimants’) was partly allowed.

2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to the present appeal are that the claimants filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal stating therein that on 29.01.1999, when claimants' son namely Ajay (since deceased) was coming from field towards Hakola Ka Badiya, a truck bearing Registration No. R.J.E.-1002, being driven by respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner, ran over Ajay, as a result of which he died on the spot. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle i.e. truck was under the ownership of respondent No.4 and was insured with the appellant.

3. The learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation in the sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition, in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants.

4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and award, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sole grievance of the appellant is that at the time of accident, the Respondent No.3 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle was only having a driving license to drive a light motor vehicle whereas, the offending vehicle was a transport vehicle, and therefore he was not authorized to drive the same at time of accident. It is further submitted that under these circumstances, the appellant can’t be held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.

5.1 He also submits that the said objection was raised by the appellant before the learned Tribunal as well, however, the learned Tribunal without discussing the fact of the case, simply decided objection under the Issue No.4 against the appellant by recording that in a case where the driver of the offending vehicle is not having a valid driving license, the insurance company can still be held liable to pay compensation to the claimant and then it can be asked to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. He, therefore, prays to quash and set aside the finding on Issue No.4.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and submits that the respondent No.3 was having a valid driving license to drive a light motor vehicle, which was produced before the learned Tribunal as Exhibit-5. It is further submitted that the registration certificate of the offending vehicle was also produced as Exhibit-4, which reflects that the offending vehicle was a light transport vehicle and therefore, the respondent No.3 was authorized to drive the same. He also submits that the learned Tribunal was justified in holding the insurance company liable to pay compensation to the claimants and prays to dismiss the present appeal.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, as also the impugned judgment and award.

8. From a bare perusal of the impugned judgment and award, it is revealed that the appellant raised an objection that the respondent No.3 was not holding a valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal, however, while deciding the Issue No.4, which also pertains to the said objection raised by the appellant, did not discuss the facts of the case and simply decided the said issue against the appellant while holding a general discussion that even in the cases where driver of a vehicle does not have a driving license, the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant but later on it can recover the same from the owner.

9