SAROJ Vs. MOHD. ISHAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on two grounds: firstly that the Insurance Company has wrongly been exonerated by the Tribunal on the ground that the driver was not having a valid driving licence; and secondly the Tribunal has not awarded just and proper compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant.

(2.) THERE is no dispute on the other facts of the case. There is also no dispute that the driver Mohd. Ishak was having a driving licence to drive Tempo only. Copy of the driving licence is Ex. D/1. He was examined as DW-1. He has admitted in his statement that though he was having a driving licence but that was for driving a private Tempo whereas on the date of accident he was driving a commercial vehicle and there was no endorsement on the said licence about driving commercial vehicle and on this ground Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability.

(3.) IN reply Mr. P.K. Gupta, learned Counsel for Insurance Company placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this High Court in the case of Mahesh Kumar and Anr. v. Hari Shanker Patel and Ors. reported in I (2000) ACC 266, in which the Division Bench of this High Court has held that if there is no endorsement of authorisation of Licensing Authority on licence on the date of accident, it will amount breach of terms of conditions of the insurance policy and the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation.