BRANCH MANAGER Vs. R MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the above Civil Revision Petition, challenging the order dated 21.07.2007 in M.C.O.P.NO.263 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Tirunelveli.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal ought to have held that the driver of the auto rickshaw was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence to drive the transport vehicle being an auto rickshaw and was holding only a licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to compensate the claimant and indemnify the owner of the vehicle.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the cumulative effect of Section 3, 10, 2(35) and Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rule 171 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicle Rules and ought to have held that the driver of the auto rickshaw will not be due to be holding an effective and valid driving licence unless he obtained a badge to drive a transport vehicle and also ought to have further held that mere possession of a Light Motor Vehicle licence is of no use in the absence of any badge or endorsement to drive a transport vehicle. He has further contended that the driver of the transport vehicle has not taken adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness of the licence. He has submitted that the pay and recovery order is not applicable to the facts of this case.