IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. NO.76 OF 2004 The New India Assurance Company Limited … Appellant Vs. Pitamber Dutt Joshi And another .. Respondent Mr. T.A. Khan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Dinesh Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent. Dated: 11-04-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle, Act, 1988, has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 24-12-2003, in MACP No. 17 of 2003. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to this appeal, are that on 31-10-2002 the claimant/respondent Pitamber Joshi was driving the jeep U.P. 23/0458. At about 8.45 A.M. near Raithal due to the brake fail of the said jeep, he lost control over it and the jeep fell in a Khan, in which the claimant sustained grievous injuries. According to the claimant, he spent about Rs. 2,25,000/- on his treatment. The claimant, therefore, filed claim petition for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-. 3- The Opposite Party/New India Assurance Company contested the claim petition by filing its written statement and alleged that exorbitant amount of compensation has been claimed. The vehicle was being run against the provision of Motor Vehicles Act. 4- On the pleadings of parties, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues in the claim petition:- 1-Wether the claim petition is not maintainable due to the fact that the jeep was being driven by the registered owner himself?. 2-Whether the owner/driver of the vehicle had no valid driving license at the time of accident? 3-Whether the vehicle was being driven by the registered owner against the conditions of insurance policy? If so, its effect? 4-To what amount of compensation the claimant is entitled to get? 5- The claimant in support of his claim produced himself as P.W. 1 and filed documentary evidence. The Opposite party did not adduce any evidence. 6- The learned Tribunal, after consideration the material on record and having heard learned counsel for the parties, allowed the claim petition for compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and directed that the compensation amount be paid within a month, failing which interest @ 9% per annum shall be payable. 7- Feeling aggrieved, the insurer has filed this appeal before this Court. 8- I have learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record. 9- The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the offending jeep was being plied by its owner and he is not entitled to claim compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed a patent error of law by fixing the liability of compensation upon the appellant/insurance company. 10- On the other hand, learned counsel for the owner/respondent has rebutted the above submission by saying that the owner/insured was having effective driving license at the time of accident and he was not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license, therefore, he was competent to file claim petition for the compensation under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. 11- After having considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, I do not find any force in the submission raise by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. In the instant case the owner himself was driving the vehicle, having effective driving license, and he was not disqualified for holding or obtaining such driving license, therefore, he was covered under driver’s clause mentioned in the cover note. The cover note issued by the Insurance Company is filed on the record as paper No.7-C/77, in which Driver’s Clause has been given on the overleaf of the said cover note, which reads as below:- “1.For state carriage/Contract Carriage/Pvt. Service: Any person including insured provided that a person driving hold an effective driving license at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner’s License may also driver that Vehicle when not used for the transport of passengers at the time of accident and that such a person satisfies the requirements of rule No.3 of the Central Motor Vehicle rules 1989.” 12- Perusal the aforesaid clause, envisaged on the overleaf of the cover note, clearly indicates that the insured person is also entitled to drive the vehicle, therefore, the insured, i.e. the driver, who is owner of the vehicle, and was driving the vehicle at the time of accident can very-well be entitled to claim compensation. I do not find any infirmity in the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned award. 13- No other point has been raised. 14- In view of above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 15- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 24-12-2003 is confirmed. 16- Let the statutory amount of compensation deposited before this Court, at the time of filing the appeal, be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB