ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SUMITRA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of F.A.O. Nos. 1261 to 1271 of 2003 (11 appeals), as all these appeals have arisen against the same award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

(2.) The appellant insurance company has filed the above-mentioned appeals against the award of the learned Tribunal, whereby various amounts of compensation had been awarded to the claimants. While awarding the compensation amount to the claimants, the learned Tribunal had found that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence, authorising him to drive the scooter/motor cycle and car/jeep and that the said licence was valid up to 26.6.2002. It was also found by the learned Tribunal that the offending vehicle was a jeep and as such the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive a jeep. Resultantly, the learned Tribunal had held the appellant insurance company liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants, jointly and severally, with the owner of the offending jeep. Aggrieved against the said award of the learned Tribunal (in 13 claim petitions), the appellant insurance company has filed these 11 F.A.Os. in this court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company submitted before us that the jeep in question was a maxicab, as defined under section 2 (22) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and was also a public service vehicle, as defined under section 2 (35) of the Act and thus, was a transport vehicle, as defined under section 2 (47) of the Act and since the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a driving licence to drive the transport vehicle, the appellant insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants.