(1.) The matter was listed for hearing the stay application, but on the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being finally disposed of.
(2.) This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') against the judgment and award dated 04.07.2011 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dungarpur, vide which, compensation of Rs.1,34,000/- has been awarded and the appellant-company has been held liable for the same.
(3.) While praying for setting aside the judgment and award qua the appellant, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle was registered and insured as a passenger carrying commercial vehicle, therefore, the same falls under the category of transport vehicle. As per Section 3 of the Act, no person can drive the transport vehicle unless his driving license specifically entitles him to do so. In the present case, a look at the driving license and DL verification report issued by DTO (Ex-A-2) clearly establish that Shri Saifuddin was authorized to drive LMV other than transport vehicle for the period from 24.08.1992 to 14.07.2007. The vehicle insured with the appellantcompany is a transport vehicle and the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle was not authorized to drive the transport vehicle. Thus, it is clear that the owner of the vehicle has willfully violated the policy conditions, therefore, the liability to pay the compensation cannot be fastened upon the appellant-company. Secondly, the tribunal has wrongly decided the issue against the appellant-company on the ground that as per the registration certificate of the vehicle, the same is a light motor vehicle and the driver was authorized to drive LMV. Such approach was stated to be wrong, as the same not only was a light motor vehicle, but was registered and insured as a passenger carrying vehicle which falls under the category of the transport vehicle. Thirdly, the driving license was issued for a period of 15 years, which on the face of it, shows that it was a light motor vehicle and not a transport vehicle.