PREM SINGH Vs. BALDASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') arises out of the award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kullu (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 6 of 1996; decided on 28.11.1997.

(2.) The materia] facts are that a Maruti van, admittedly registered as a taxi, bearing registration No. HP 02-4181. This taxi was being driven by its driver Sunil Kumar on 10.6.1995. At about 8 a.m. this taxi hit the petitioner, Baldasi. The taxi was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Baldasi filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Act. The factum of the accident was not denied. However, according to the owner the accident had occurred due to negligence of the claimant herself. In the alternative it was pleaded that since the vehicle was insured with the insurance company the liability, if any, was that of the insurance company. The insurance company, on the other hand, took up the plea that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and, therefore, it was not liable.

(3.) The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs.29,570. It, however, held that this amount was to be paid by the owner only. The registration certificate of the vehicle was proved on record as Exh. R1 which showed that it was a transport vehicle. The driving licence of the driver was proved on record as Exh. R2. This driving licence permitted the driver Sunil Kumar to drive a fight motor vehicle only and the endorsement to drive a transport vehicle was made on 22.1.1996, after the accident had taken place on 10.6.1995. The learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that on the date of the accident the driver did not have a valid driving licence to drive a transport vehicle and, therefore, exonerated the insurance company.