NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SIDDU C M

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals and accompanying revision have been referred to the division Bench by a learned Single Judge of this Court to consider the question as to whether the driver holding licence to drive heavy passenger vehicle can be said to be holding an effective licence to drive a 'heavy goods vehicle'.

(2.) THE fact matrix leading to reference lies in a narrow compass. The additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Belgaum (hereinafter called as the Tribunal'), by its common judgment and separate awards in m. V. C. No. 250 of 1992, M. V. C, No. 1404 of 1991, M. V. C. No. 1736 of 1991 and M. V. C. No. 1405 of 1992, dated 1-1-1999 held that in a motor accident that occurred on 26-8-1991 due to rash or negligent driving of the Lorry bearing No. KA 18-364, the KSRTC Bus bearing No. MEF 3499 was damaged and the claimants being passengers in the Bus were injured and hence, were entitled to compensation. The Tribunal negatived the contention of the National Insurance Company (hereinafter called as the 'insurer', which had insured the Lorry) that the driver of the Lorry was only holding licence to drive heavy passenger vehicle and that hence had no effective licence to drive heavy goods vehicle involved in the accident and hence, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation awarded to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal holding that the driver of the Lorry had an effective licence to drive heavy goods vehicle, the Insurance Company has filed the Appeals and Revision contending that the Driver of the lorry at the time of the accident, had only a licence to drive heavy passenger vehicle and did not hold licence to drive heavy goods vehicle insured by it and involved in the accident and the Tribunal could not have saddled the liability on the Insurer in view of the decision of this court in M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Bangalore v dhanalakshmi and Others.

(3.) THE learned Single Judge hearing the appeal felt that the question raised by the insurer in the appeal requires consideration by a Division benqh and accordingly, referred the matter to the Bench.