IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL A.O. No.98 of 2008 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. …Appellant Versus Smt. Satish Dora & others … Respondents Sri Prabhat Pande, Advocate for appellant Sri S.K. Mandal, Advocate for claimants-respondents no. 1 to 4 Sri S.C. Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no. 5 Dated: September 17, 2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.4.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II Addl. District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in MACP No. 69/1999, whereby claim petition of respondents/claimants was allowed and compensation of Rs.1,99,000/- was awarded to them to be paid by appellant-United India Insurance Company Ltd. with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of final payment. The brief facts, as emerged out from the record, are that on 16.2.1999 the deceased-Ram Nath Dora was returning to his home from his shop, situate at Village Bhud, P.S. Khatima. At about 6.30 p.m. motor cycle bearing Registration No. U.P. 04- B/2260 came over there from Khatima side at a higher speed and dashed Ram Nath Dora, due to which he sustained grievous injuries and died at the spot instantaneously. The claimants, thereafter filed claim petition for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-. In 2 their claim petition, the claimants mentioned the age of deceased as 52 years at the time of accident, and his income was shown as Rs.4,000/- per month from the shop business. The opposite party-Hayat Singh, owner of motor cycle no. UP-04B/2260 filed his written statement alleging therein that on the date of accident he was not driving the motorcycle. He also alleged that motor cycle was insured with United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The income of deceased was also disputed by Hayat Singh. The insurance company filed written statement stating therein that amount of compensation claimed is exorbitant. It has also been pleaded that offending motor cycle had no valid documents at the time of accident and its liability to pay the compensation was denied. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings adduced by the parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led evidence in support of their case. The learned Tribunal after assessment of evidence and hearing learned counsel for parties, decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.1,99,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, in favour of claimants and amount of compensation was to be paid by insurer of motor cycle i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award the insurer of vehicle filed appeal before this Court. 3 The appeal has already been decided on merits by this Court vide judgment dated 07.09.2006. Thereafter, a review petition was filed by owner of vehicle in question and that review petition after hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as learned counsel for owner of vehicle in question, was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 22.12.2006. In view of the direction issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court the owner of offending vehicle is again being given an opportunity of being heard. Hence, after hearing learned counsel for owner of offending vehicle-Sri S.C. Bhatt the appeal is being decided on merits. Heard Sri Prabhat Pande, learned counsel for appellant, Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for claimants-respondents no. 1 to 4, Sri S.C. Bhatt, learned counsel for respondent no. 5-Hayat Singh, owner of motorcycle No. U.P.04B/2260 and perused the record. Learned counsel for owner of vehicle in question has submitted that the deceased was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident as he had a driving licence for driving light motor vehicle. As per his submission motorcycle is included in light motor vehicle, therefore, it cannot be held by any stretch of imagination that deceased was not holding a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. I fail to appreciate the argument advanced by learned counsel for owner of vehicle in question. 4 This Court on the previous occasion has already held that motorcycle is a different class of the vehicle and a person who does not possess the driving licence for driving the motorcycle cannot be said to have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the same even if he is in possession of the driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a case Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Zaharulnisha and others, reported in SC-2008 662, has held as under: “18. In the light of the above-settled proposition of law, the appellant-insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving totally different class of vehicle which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act.” In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as on the basis of material available on record, it becomes quite clear that a person holding driving licence for light motor vehicle, which has four wheels, is not entitled to drive a motor vehicle having two wheels, i.e., motor cycle for which either separate licence or endorsement on the licence already obtained by him for another class of motor vehicle is required. The driver of motor cycle in this case did not possess the separate licence for the motor cycle in question or endorsement on the licence of light motor vehicle held by him, hence he was not entitled to drive the said motor cycle and 5 thus the condition of insurance policy is violated absolving the insurance company from the liability of payment of compensation. With the result, the impugned judgment and award dated 24.4.2002 passed by MACT/II Addl. District Judge, Udham Singh Nagar, in MACP No.69/1999, is modified to the extent that insurance company i.e. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., who is insurer of offending vehicle in question, although would pay the amount of compensation to the claimants/respondents, but it shall have a recoverable right to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of motor cycle in question. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is finally disposed of. The statutory amount deposited by the appellant before this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP