Sureshwar Thakur, J. - (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 Claims Tribunal-II, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P., upon, Claim Petition No. 49 of 2011, (i) wherethrough, compensation amount, comprised, in, a sum of Rs.2,13,100/- 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-a-vis, the petitioner therein/respondent No.1 herein, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was fastened, upon, the insurer/appellant herein. On the other hand, respondent No.1/cross objector also reared cross-objections, bearing C.O No. 30 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 illfated 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 award, is, anchored upon, qua though, the vehicle, as borne, from the apposite registration certificate, embodied in Ex.RW1/B, being categorized, as, a, light goods vehicle, (i) whereas, contrary the driving licence, rather held, at the relevant time, by respondent No.3 herein, and, as borne in Ex.RW2/A, though, authorized him to drive vehicle(s) carrying, the, classification of "light motor vehicle", and, "light transport vehicle", yet, when there occurring no specific, and, explicit pronouncement, in, Ex. RW2/A, vis-a-vis, respondent No.3 herein, being also authorized to drive, the, offending vehicle, (ii) thereupon, Ex.RW2/A being not construable to be a valid, and, effective driving licence, for, hence, authorizing 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, grave 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 there occurring, a specific, and, explicit echoing, vis-a-vis, respondent No.3 herein, being authorized to drive, a, "light motor vehicle-non transport", and, a "light motor vehicle-transport", (b) and, the afore echoings dehors, any further explicit echoing becoming carried therein, vis-a-vis, respondent No.3 herein being authorized, to, drive a light transport vehicle, rather are 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.
;