^. ^3'6d >iag!e_Bench : MonMe SiinDiUp_Raosabeb Deshmukh, J. MisceiianeousADeea[lC,)Np,886of2007 AeEeiiant fNoO"ARB>!C3Bt H:a'^DDalcsnt No, National Insurance Comoanv Limited, Through : Its Branch Manager, Branch Distt. Bastar (C.G.) (ApcSscant) (Non-ADOiicant No.1 Jagda! versys 1. Smt. Janfa @ Bajdo Bai, afled 40 ysars, Rar^prasad Kavde Parsuram, Occu. Farmer-Labour, R/o Vijiage Bar Post Hatkarra, P.S. Korar, Tah. & Kanker (C.G.) 2. Gopai, S/b Surajuram, Caste - Ha!ba, Aged 38 years, R/o VH!. - Chiihati, P.S. - Korar, Tahsii - ihanupratappur, Distt. - Kanker (C.G.5 (Driver) 3. Ramsvarup Pandey, S'o Ramsundar Pandey, R/o Viilage - Korar, Tahsl! - Distt.Kanker(C.G.) (Owner) Apoeai under Section 173ofthe MotorVehiclesAct, 1988 [Non-Aopiicant NoJ Shri Dashrath Gupfa, counsei for the appetiant. Shri P.P.Sahu, counsel for respondents No.2 and 3. No one appears for respondent No.'i. Heard. (2) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned.counsel for the appeliant/insurer has urged the foiiowing grounds In this appeal: that the ciaimant having failed fo sstabiish that she was the owner travelling with the goods in Matador 709 No.CG 04/ZB 2348 (henceforth 'the Matador'), there was a fundamenial breach of the poiicy of insurance because the |F-f" vehicle was insured as a goods carrying commerciat vehicle, and (B) that the driver of the offendina vehicie did not possess a vaiid driving iicence to drive the Matador at the time of accident. (3) So far as the first ground urged by learned counsel for the appeiiant/insurer is concerned, the testimony of the ciaimant Smt. Janfa that she was travei'ing in the Matador with a load of vegetables, which she was taking to the Korar Market, is whoily unrebutted in cross- examination. No evidence to rebut the above fact was adduced by the insurer. In this view ofthe matter, since the claimant was the owner of the goods traveiiing with the goods in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, the insurer was, under Section 147(1) of the Motor Vehictes Act (henceforth 'the Act'), under a statutory iiabiiity to cover t'ne risk of the ov/ner traveliing with the goods. En this view of tiie matter, the argument advanced by iearned counsei for the appellant/lnsurer cannot be accepted. (4) So far as the second ground urged by learned counsel for the appeiiant/insurer is concernsd, it is not in dispute that a Matador fatls within the definition of iight motor vehicle given under Section 2(21) of the Act. The evidence of Shri Rajesh Kumar Bhargava, Licence Clerk, Regionai Transport Office, Raipur, whewas examined in a connected matter Ciaim Case No.72/06 proves that the driver of the Matador possessed a vaiid driving iicence on the date of accldent to drive a iight motor vehicie and the same was renewed for the period from 16-01- 2001 to 15-01-2006. The original licence was flied in Claim Case No.72/06 and a copy thereof was pfaced in the present ciaim case. it shows that it was renewed for the period from 16-01-2001 to 15-01- 2006. it a!so shows that the driver was further aufhorized to drive a heaw aoods vehicle. The testimonv of the Licence Clerk Shri Ralesh Kumar Bhargava proves beyond doubt that the licence Ex.N.A.-1 is a vaiid 'icsnce issued by the Regionai Transport Office, Raipur and renewed by the Regional Transport Office, Jagdaipur from 16-01-2001 to 15-01-2006. The actmission by the Licence Cterk Shri Rajesh Kumar Bhargava in cross-examination that a driver holding the driving iicence Ex.N.A.-l was authorised to drive any Matador or heavy transport vehicie also shows that the driver of the Matador possessed a valid and effective driving iicence on the date of accident. There is also absoluteiy no material on record to show that the insured faiied to exerolse due diligence or reasonabie care in the matter of entrusting use of vehicie bv a duiv iicensed driver. !n this view of the matter, the tribunai rightiy fastened iiability on the insurer to pay compensation of (5) There is no merit in this appeai. Itis accordingiydismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Gopa!