BHAILALBHAI GARBABHAI VASAVA Vs. MUNIKHAN ISMAILKHAN SAYED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present First Appeal is filed being aggrieved of the judgement and award dated 11/02/1985 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Panch Mahals at Godhra in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.479 of 1982, whereby the petitioners, appellants herein, are held entitled to recover from opponent nos.1 and 3 (driver and owner respectively of the vehicle) a sum of Rs.48,240=00 (Rupees Forty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Forty Only) by way of compensation with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the application till realisation. The Tribunal was pleased to exonerate the insurance company accepting the plea of the insurance company, opponent no.4 before the Tribunal, that the driver of the vehicle had no valid licence to drive the vehicle in question and, thus, there was breach of the terms and conditions of the policy.

(2.) Mr.M.T.M.Hakim, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants, invited the attention of the Court to the discussion on this point in paragraph 17 onwards of the judgement. The Tribunal has placed reliance on a decision of the Honourable Madras High Court in the matter between Anjanadevi vs. Arumugham and Anr., reported in AIR 1983 Madras 283. The Tribunal, while appreciating the said decision of the Honourable Madras High Court, has discussed the same in paragraph 18, which reads as under:

(3.) The learned Advocate for the appellants-claimants submitted that the learned Presiding Officer has committed an error in not accepting the contentions raised by the claimants that the driver had a licence for driving a light motor vehicle and matador is a light motor vehicle. He further submitted that the learned Presiding Officer ought to have appreciated that merely because from the licence of the driver, "authorisation to drive a transport vehicle" is scored of, he does not lose the capacity to drive a light motor vehicle even if it happened to be "transport vehicle".