NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. NAGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is an insurance company, which has been saddled with the liability to pay compensation in favour of the legal representatives of a deceased victim of a motor accident. The deceased was said to be driving a mini lorry and the vehicle insured by the appellant was said to be a TATA tempo 407, which was treated as the offending vehicle and the driver of which was said to be responsible for the accident. The claim petition was said to have been resisted by the appellant, interalia, on the ground that the driver of the insured vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and therefore, as that was in breach of the policy conditions, the appellant insurer sought to absolve itself of the liability. The defence of the appellant having been negatived by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MACT) the present appeal is filed.

(2.) As already stated, it is contended on behalf of the appellant that as seen from the record, the driver concerned was holding a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle. The vehicle involved was a transport vehicle and that in the absence of the licence specifically enabling him to drive a transport vehicle, it could not be said that the driver was holding a valid driving licence to do so.

(3.) On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent - claimants vehemently refutes the contention of the appellant and seeks to canvas that the said transport vehicle was a light motor vehicle and since the driver did possess a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, there was no infirmity if the licence did not also specify that he was enabled to drive a transport vehicle. The learned counsel has placed reliance on several authorities in support of the proposition.