SMRUTI RANJAN PARIDA Vs. TARAMANI DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the owner of the vehicle (insured) is directed against the judgment/award dated 22.01.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-IV, Bhadrak, in MAC No. 54 of 2005, holding the owner-appellant to have violated the policy condition and is therefore liable to indemnify the loss and accordingly directing the insurer to pay the compensation amount, with the right to recover the same from the owner.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the owner-appellant submitted that as the offending vehicle is a Auto-rickshaw Delivery Van and the driver had a driving licence, authorising him to drive a Auto-rickshaw, the said driving licence was valid and effective at the time of the accident and therefore, there was no violation of policy condition. In this regard, it was submitted that as the evidence on affidavit filed by the owner-appellant clearly revealed that the offending Auto-rickshaw had a unladen weight of 470 kgs. and the driver Prasanta Muduli had a valid driving licence bearing D.L. No. 12361/04-05, issued by the Licensing Authority, Cuttack, authorizing him to drive a Auto-rickshaw only, learned Tribunal erred in holding that the said driving licence did not authorize the driver to drive the offending vehicle and that the driver had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. It was accordingly submitted that as the driving licence was issued in respect of a Auto-rickshaw and admittedly the offending vehicle was a Auto-rickshaw Delivery Van bearing No. OR-05-U/7812, which is a light motor vehicle, the said driving licence was valid and effective and therefore the findings of the learned Tribunal is erroneous and illegal.

(3.) In support of the aforesaid contention, learned Counsel for the owner-appellant has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1999 AIR(SC) 3181, wherein the Hon'ble Court came to find as under: