DHARMA RAM Vs. PEMA RAMJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals arise from the common judgment, therefore were heard analogously and are being disposed of by a common judgment.

(2.) The claim petition submitted by the claimants Dharma Ram and Smt. Dami related to the accident occurred on November 18, 1992 when Truck RJ 04 G 0061 crushed Kumari Veena a girl of 11 years, who was student of six class. Dharma Ram and Smt. Dami are her parents sought compensation by filing claim petition. The claim petition was contested by the insurance company, who is appellant in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 487/1995 as well as the vehicle owner. The learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 42,250/- as compensation to the claimants. Dissatisfied with the size of the award, claimants preferred Misc. Appeal No. 208 of 1995, whereas the insurance company assailed the said award on the ground that the owner of the vehicle committed breach of the policy, hence the insurance company was not liable for compensation.

(3.) I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions of carefully scanned the material on record. The contention of Mr. R. K. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company is that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid licence at the time of the accident. The driving licence produced was of light transport vehicle whereas the vehicle involved in the accident was heavy transport vehicle. The driver Pemaram was having a non transport licence but was allowed to drive the heavy transport vehicle for that he was not authorised. As such the insurance company could not have been held responsible to pay the compensation. Shri Mehta learned counsel has drawn my attention towards Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which reads as under :