HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELANEOUS APPEAL No.1466 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Questioning its liability for payment of compensation, the New India Assurance Company Limited filed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order in O.P. No.98 of 2000 dated 12-08-2002 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – III Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. According to the claimant’s case, on 04-12-1999 at about 6-15 PM, at Bapuji Nagar, Musheerabad, scooter bearing No.AP-9S- 2562 belonging to respondent No.1, driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against him, as a result, he fell down and sustained fractures and other multiple injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Sagarlal Memorial Hospital and from there to Universal Hospital at RTX crossroads, Hyderabad. He was treated as inpatient for 42 days. He was earning Rs.4,500/- per month. Hence, he claimed total compensation of Rs.1,25,000/-. 4. Respondent No.1, owner of the scooter that caused the accident, remained ex parte and respondent No.2 – Insurance Company, appellant herein, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. 5. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of R1’s driver ? 2. Whether the petitioner (claimant) is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? 6. To prove his claim, claimant got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-11. On behalf of the Insurance Company, RW.1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. 7. Based on the evidence on record, Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.46,500/- to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him against respondent Nos.1 and 2, owner of the scooter and its insurer, making them liable for payment of compensation jointly and severally. Aggrieved of the same, Insurance Company filed this appeal contending that it is not liable for payment of compensation. 8. Heard Dr. Muddu Vijay, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, and Sri Dhanunjaya Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, and perused the material on record. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company – appellant is that driver of the scooter, which belongs to respondent No.1, was not holding valid licence to drive two-wheeler at the time of accident, as such, Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation. 10. Only liability for payment of compensation is seriously questioned. 11. Ex.A-9 is copy of the driving licence of the driver of the scooter, which does not show that holder of that licence possesses power to drive a two-wheeler also. Hence, it is contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that it has to be accepted that driver of the scooter had no valid driving licence to drive the scooter at the time of accident and in view of the same, it has to be held that owner of the scooter - respondent No.1 alone is liable for payment of compensation. 12. The contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that when the driver was holding licence to drive heavy vehicles as revealed from Ex.A-9, there would not have been any difficulty for him to drive a two-wheeler. This hypothetical position cannot be accepted. It is possible that a four-wheeler driver may not be knowing driving of two-wheelers. However, fact remains that there was no licence to the driver of the scooter to drive a two-wheeler at the time of accident. No rule under the relevant Act is brought to my notice to say that if a driver is holding licence to drive heavy motor vehicles, it is deemed that he has licence to drive light motor vehicles including two-wheeler. Perhaps, it can be accepted that he can drive a light four-wheeler, but so far as two-wheeler is concerned, it is completely different, as it requires balanceing technique unlike four-wheeler. 13. In view of the above, it has to be accepted that driver of the scooter has no valid driving licence to drive the scooter at the time of accident, as such, owner of the scooter, respondent No.1, alone is liable for payment of compensation to the claimant and the appellant - Insurance Company cannot be made liable for payment of compensation. 14. In the circumstances, compensation of Rs.25,000/-, which was already deposited by the Insurance Company out of total compensation of Rs.46,500/- and withdrawn by the claimant, need not be returned by the claimant and the same may be recovered by the Insurance Company from the owner of the scooter – respondent No.1. It is also directed that the claimant can recover remaining compensation of Rs.21,500/- from the owner of the scooter – respondent No.1. 15. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 23, 2010. PV