NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. Vs. SATYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal was to the award dated December 31, 2003 passed by the Accident Claims Tribunal, Kathua in a claim petition titled Smt. Satya Devi and Ors. v. Rakesh Singh and Ors. Whereby claim petition came to be allowed and compensation to the tune of Ts, 2,75,000 with 9% per annum interest came to be granted in favour of claimants respondent Nos. 1 to 4, for short hereinafter, 'impugned award' BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1, Rakesh Singh, driver has driven the offending vehicle -Matador No. JK02H -5767 rashly and negligently at National Highway (NHW -1 A) at No nath and hit one Ram Chand, who sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. Claimants -respondent Nos. 1 to filed claim petition claiming compensation on the grounds given in the claim petition. Respondents filed reply and resisted the petition. The following four issues came to be framed.

(3.) RELIEF . Petitioners examined petitioner No. 1 and also Karanjit and Suresh Kumar as witnesses. Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have not examined any witness. Respondent No. 3 examined only one witness namely, Kulbhushan Singh, an employee of Regional Transport Office, Lakhanpur. Petitioners have also produced certified copies of FIR and Charge sheet Challan. 3. There is ample oral evidence on the file that respondent No. 5 -Rakesh Singh -driver has driven the offending vehicle -Matador rashly and negligently at National Highway near Nonath and hit Ram Chand who sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. Certified copies of documents - FIR and Challan also support the version of the witnesses. The respondents have not lodged any witness in order to dislodge the evidence of the claimants -respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The Tribunal has rightly decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. 4. Before dealing issue No. 2, I deem it proper to discuss issue No. 3. The onus of issue No. 3 was on Insurer -Appellant, who has examined only one witness namely, Kulbhushan Singh. He has categorically deposed that the driver Rakesh Singh was having valid and effective driving licence for driving Motor Cycle, Light Motor Vehicle. The licence was renewed from December 30, 1995 to December 29, 2000. However, he has stated that he could not drive Matador which is a commercial vehicle. He has admitted in cross -examination that the vehicles with unladen weight up to 6500 kgs. fall under the category of light motor vehicle and while going through the photocopy of R.C of the offending vehicle, its weight is given 5300 kgs. The Appellant -Insurer has categorically opined being expert that Matador, offending vehicle, was of weight of 5300 kgs and is falling within the definition of light motor vehicle. The Apex Court has also held that Swaraj Mazda is falling within the definition of light motor vehicle. A Division Bench of this Court in a case titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Muhammad Sidiq Kuchey , also held that if a driver having driving licence with respect to light motor vehicle, he can drive a passenger vehicle also.