ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MAMIDI RADHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS 1 to 3, who are the widow and parents of Mamidi chandraiah (the deceased), filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act), seeking a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the 4th respondent, who is the owner of Auto bearing No. AP1t 9451, and the appellant, who is the insurer of the said Auto, alleging that the deceased, who was aged about 23 years and earning about Rs. 1,500/- per month by doing agricultural coolie work, had while travelling in the said Auto, died due to an accident caused as a result of the rash and negligent driving of its driver. 4th respondent chose to remain ex pane. Appellant filed its counter inter alia contending that it is not liable to pay any compensation inasmuch as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence. In support of their case, the claimants examined one witness as P. W. I and marked Exs. A. l to A. 5 on their behalf. The appellant examined one witness as r. W. 1 and marked Exs. B. l to B. 3 on its behalf. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Auto and that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of rs. 1,67,590/- and that the appellant also is liable to pay compensation holding that the contention of the appellant that the driver of the Auto was not having a valid driving licence is not tenable. Questioning the finding of the Tribunal that its contention that the driver of the Auto involved in the accident was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident is not tenable, the insurer of the Auto preferred this appeal.

(2.) THE point for consideration is whether the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants?

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel for appellant is that, in view of the ratio in Sanjan Kumar Saraf v. Jit Bahan mahto, 2008 ACJ 1208 the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to respondents 1 to 3 inasmuch as the driver of the Auto in which the deceased was travelling at the time of the accident was not having valid driving licence, because the evidence of R. W. 1 clearly shows that the driver of that Auto was having a licence to drive light motor vehicles and Auto-rickshaws from 14. 5. 1996 to 13. 5. 2016 and that it was converted as 'transport driving licence' only from 29. 4. 1999 upto 28. 4. 2002. It is his contention that as the accident involving the deceased occurred on 4. 6. 1996 i. e. long prior to the driver of that Auto obtaining a 'transport driving licence' on 29. 4. 1999, the appellant cannot be made liable to pay the compensation payable to the claimants because the driver who does not have a transport driving licence cannot carry passengers, as an Auto rickshaw carrying passengers would be a 'transport vehicle' within the meaning of section 2 (47) of the Act. There is no representation on behalf of respondents 1 to 3, though served.