ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD Vs. DEEP RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Insurer of the offending vehicle, whereuponwhom, the apposite indemnificatory liability, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount, stood fastened, is, aggrieved by the pronouncement, made, by the learned Motor Accident Claimas Tribunal-II, Mandi, H.P., , upon, Claim Petition No. 47 of 2011, (i) wherethrough, compensation amount, comprised, in, a sum of Rs.3,68,500/- alongwith interest accrued thereon, at the rate of 7.5% per annum, and, commencing from, the date of petition till realization thereof, stood assessed, vis-avis, the disabled claimant, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened, upon, the insurer/appellant herein. On the other hand, the respondent No.1/cross objector also reared crossobjections, bearing CO No. 32 of 2015, against, the impugned award, wherethrough, he seeks enhancement of compensation amount, in a sum, higher, than, the one assessed qua him, under, the impugned award.

(2.) The learned counsel, appearing for the aggrieved insurer, does not, contest the validity, of, rendition, of, affirmative findings, upon, the issue appertaining, to, the ill-fated mishap, being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner, of, driving, of, the offending vehicle, by, respondent No.3 herein. However, his centralized focus, for, his making an onslaught, vis-a-vis, the impugned ward, is, anchored upon, though, the vehicle, as borne, from the apposite registration certificate, embodied in Ex.RW1/B, being categorised, as, a, light goods vehicle, (i) whereas, the driving licence, held, at the relevant time, by respondent No.3 herein, borne in Ex.RW2/A, though, authorised him to drive vehicle(s) carrying, the, classification of "light motor vehicle", and, "light transport vehicle", yet when there is no specific, and, explicit pronouncement, in, Ex. RW2/A, vis-a-vis, respondent No.3 herein, being also authorised to drive, the, offending vehicle, (ii) thereupon, Ex.RW2/A being not construable to be a valid, and, effective driving licence, for, hence, authorising respondent No.3 herein, to, drive the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, (iii) and, has also contended, that, the fastening, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the appellant, does also, suffer from, a, fallibility.

(3.) However, the afore contention, is, per se, ridden, with a gross fallacy, as, a bare scanning, of, Ex.RW2/A, (a) makes, clear revelations qua their occurring, a specific, and, explicit echoing, vis-a-vis, respondent No.3 herein, being authorised to drive, a, "light motor vehicle", and, a "light motor vehicletransport", (b) and, the afore echoings dehors, any further explicit echoing carried therein, vis-a-vis, respondent No.3 herein being authorised to drive a light transport vehicle, rather is sufficient, and, abundant, to constrain this Court, to, conclude qua the respondent No.3 herein, rather holding, an, authorization, through, Ex.RW2/A, to, drive, the, offending vehicle.