FAO No. 5418 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No. 5418 of 2010 Date of decision 28.7.2011 Satpal Singh and Others Appellants v. Rajesh and Another Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Parminder Singh,Advocate for the appellants .... JITENDRA CHAUHAN.J This appeal has been filed by the Appellants against the Award dated 17.4.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short the Tribunal). The brief facts of the case are that on 20.6.2007, 811.1.2008,Rajesh was coming from Gharaunda on his motor cycle with Sat Narain as the pillion rider. When they reached near Jhinwron Wali Gamri, Jattan, a Tata-407 (Tempo) No. HR-47-3256,(offending vehicle) driven by respondent No. 1, in a rash and negligent manner came from the front side and hit the motor cycle, as a result of which Rajesh received multiple grievous injuries. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Karnal. FIR No. 186 dated 21.6.2007 was registered against respondent No.1 under sections 279, 337 IPC in Police Station, Gharaunda. Upon notice, respondents No. 1 to 3 filed joint written statement and denied the averments of the claimant and took the stand that no accident took place and a false case was registered against respondent No.1. FAO No. 5418 of 2010 2 In separate written statement filed by the respondent No.4, a similar stand was taken and collusion between the parties was pleaded. It was also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. Rajesh-injured stepped into the witness box as PW1, and submitted his affidavit Ex.PW/1, stating that the offending vehicle was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit his motor cycle. The driver of the offending vehicle did not step into the witness box to put forward his defence. The respondent No.1 is facing criminal trial for causing this accident. A perusal of Ex.P-4, site plan of the spot prepared by the police clearly shows that the offending vehicle was on the wrong side, when the accident occurred. From the perusal of the award and record adduced by the learned counsel, this Court feels that the Ld. Tribunal rightly held that the claimant has successfully proved that he received injuries in the accident, due to rash and negligent driving of driver, respondent No.1 on the date of accident. So far as the quantum of compensation to the injured Rajesh, the Ld. Tribunal after going through the medical record, came to the conclusion that he is entitled to Rs. 50,000/- for the injuries suffered. The Tribunal held liable the driver, owner and the insurance company jointly and severally to pay the amount of compensation to the injured. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company denying the liability, submitted before the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of FAO No. 5418 of 2010 3 compensation. The driver-respondent No.1 stated that at the time of this accident, he was having a driving licence copy of which is Ex.R-1,which was valid and effective only for LMV vehicles whereas the offending Tata 407 was LMV transport vehicle. From the testimony of RW-1 Charanjit Singh, clerk ,Licensing Authority, Karnal, who has brought the entire record of renewal of driving license D1, it was proved that the license was endorsed for light and heavy transport vehicles only on 17.11.2007, whereas the accident in question, occurred on 20.6.2007, five months prior to the date of renewal. The driving licence possessed by the driver was valid only to drive Light Motor Vehicles. As per the Motor Vehicle Act,1988, Tata 407 falls under the description of Light Motor Transport Vehicle. The driver was not possessing valid driving licence to drive this vehicle. The Ld. Tribunal held that it is proved on record that the driver,respondent No.1 was not possessing a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident, which clearly amounts to breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The Insurance Company was given the right to recover the amount of compensation from respondents Nos. 1 to 3, in case of payment to the claimant. In view of the well reasoned findings of the Ld. Tribunal, no ground is made out to interfere in the appeal filed by the driver and other appellants. Therefore, the same fails and is dismissed. (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 28.7.2011 ms