1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 10.10.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Amreli in M.A.C.P.
No.74 of 1997, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation in the sum of Rs.1,03,000/- to the claimants with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of filing of the petition till realization.
2. The brief facts of the present case are that the present accident has occurred on 19.03.1996 at about 7:00 p.m. at Village Chamardi under the local limits of the jurisdiction of Babara Police Station of Amreli District. The claimants have averred in their claim petition that on the day of accident, the deceased Bipinbhai Maganlalwas traveling in the goods rickshaw bearing Registration No.GJ-14-T-5152 along with his goods by fixing fare. When said rickshaw reached at village Chamardi at that time, another goods rickshaw bearing Registration No.GJ-14-T-5076 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and with excessive speed and dashed with the goods rickshaw of Bipinbhai Maganbhai, as a result of which, deceased Bipinbhai sustained serious bodily injuries. He was immediately shifted to the Government Hospital, Babara but during the course of treatment he died. Therefore, the legal heirs of the deceased filed claim petition being M.A.C.P. No.74 of 1997 before the Tribunal for compensation.
3. The Tribunal, after hearing learned advocate for the parties and after considering the evidence produced on record, decided the claim petition and passed the award as stated herein above, against which present appeal is preferred.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding the appellant Insurance Company to make payment of compensation to the claimants jointly and severally. The opponent no.3 i.e. the driver-cum-owner of the Rickshaw No.GJ-14-T-5152 was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of the accident as per Exh:39, and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have come to the conclusion that the appellant Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award. Therefore, he prayed to allow this appeal and exonerate the appellant Insurance Company from making payment of compensation to the claimants.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and submitted that no interference is called for and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. In the case of New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another reported in 2008(8) Scale 572, the Apex Court observed in Paras-13 and 14 as under:
“13. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. [(2004) 3 SCC 297], this Court opined:
"89. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub- section (2) of the said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub- section (2) of Section 10. They are "goods carriage", "heavy goods vehicle", "heavy passenger motor vehicle", "invalid carriage", "light motor vehicle", "maxi-cab", "medium goods vehicle", "medium passenger motor vehicle", "motor-cab", "motorcycle", "omnibus", "private service vehicle", "semi- trailer", "tourist vehicle", "tractor", "trailer" and "transport vehicle". In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal as a person possessing a driving licence for "motorcycle without gear", [sic may be driving a vehicle] for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for "light motor vehicle" is found to be driving a "maxi-cab", "motor-cab" or "omnibus" for which he has no licence. In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that the accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. The said decision has been considered by this Court in Kusum Rai (supra).”
14. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and Ors. [(2008) 1 SCALE 642], it was noticed that the provisions of the Act have undergone a change. The definition of `light motor vehicle' would not include a light transport vehicle. In that case, keeping in view the date on which the accident took place, it was held:
"From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that transport vehicle has now been substituted for `medium goods vehicle' and `heavy goods vehicle'. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle.
A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorized to drive a light goods vehicle as well."
8. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeals is partly allowed.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J.]
koshti/