AVINASH CRASTA Vs. SADIQ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Motor. Accident Claims Tribunal. Chikmagalur [the 'Tribunal', for short] in MVC No. 588/2008.

(2.) This, appeal the owner of the offending vehicle Tata Van bearing registration No. KA-18/A-881 duly insured with the respondent No. 2-Insurance company. The claimant preferred a petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident which occurred on 14.05.2008 alleging actionable negligence on the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant-owner and respondent No.2-Insurance company contested the claim. The Tribunal appreciating the material evidence on record, awarded total compensation of Rs. 29,800.00 with interest at 6% per annum till the date of realization fastening the liability on the appellant to pay compensation. with interest. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/owner is in appeal challenging the liability aspect.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed valid and effective driving licence to drive the heavy transport Vehicle as on the date of the accident. At the first instance, though the driving licence marked as Exhibit. R1 was before the Tribunal, the vital aspect of the driver possessing the valid and effective driving licence to drive the heavy motor vehicle was lost sight of and the Tribunal proceeded on the ground that the driver had the effective driving licence to drive only the light motor vehicle and as such offending vehicle being a medium goods vehicle was not qualified to drive the same. As such, there was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Accordingly, the insurance company was exonerated from the liability. Subsequently, a review petition was filed emphasizing the factual aspect that the driver of the offending vehicle did possess valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, i.e., driver had the licence to drive heavy goods vehicle. The Tribunal failed to appreciate the same and dismissed the review petition.