Case: Sudhir Kumar Rana Vs. Surinder Singh

2. Appellant was driving abearing registration No.AQ 0731 on 30.10.2003. He was aged about 17 = years. He met with an accident, as allegedly respondent No.1 was driving arashly and negligently. He suffered the following injuries in the saidCrush injury over right root.2. Fracture fifth M.T. bone and joint.3. Fracture P.P. little toe. (Total 3 fractures)4. Abrasions over left side trunk,nd andProfusely Bleeding.6. Abrasions and blunt injuries all over body.Appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act"). The Tribunal opined that as the appellant did not possess a driving licence, he must be held to have contributed to the accident. Although a sum of Rs. 30,000/was awarded by way of compensation, in view of the finding that he was guilty of contributory negligence on his part, found to be entitled to a sum of Rs. 12,000/only. The High Court by reason of the impugned judgment has dismissed the appeal preferred by him under Section 173 of the Act.

Court's reasoning:
8. If a person drives a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the courts below that it was the driver of thewhich was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving therashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not having a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence.9. The matter might have been different if by reason of his rash and negligent driving, the accident had taken place.