Permod Kohli, J. - (1.) Appellant is the owner of the offending vehicle who is aggrieved of the impugned award dated 31.10.2002 to the extent it directs the appellant to pay the liability under the award and exoneration of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (in short 'the insurance company'), respondent No. 3, herein. In the claim petition filed before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon (in short 'the Tribunal') the claimants claimed compensation for the death of one Ram Singh. The insurance company disputed its liability on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessed of valid driving licence on the date of the accident. The Tribunal framed the following issue on this question: "Whether respondent No. 1 did not possess a valid driving licence on the date of accident? OPP"
(2.) The driving licence of the driver was placed on record as Exh. R1. This driving licence depicts that the driver was entitled to drive a motor cycle with gear and motor car only. The offending vehicle is a jeep manufactured by Mahindra & Mahindra. The Tribunal has held that Mahindra & Mahindra jeep was a utility vehicle and cannot be equated with a motor car. On that basis, the Tribunal shifted the liability to the owner of the offending vehicle, the appellant herein, although the vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company, respondent No. 3. Consequently, the insurance company was absolved of the liability under the award and the appellant was directed to pay the award amount. It is this direction which is seriously challenged in the present appeal. It is not in dispute that the driver of the offending vehicle was in possession of a licence to drive light motor vehicle/motor car. No other material except the make of the vehicle was brought on record to testify that the offending vehicle is not a motor car or a light motor vehicle.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent insurance company has supported the award relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal, 2008 ACJ 627 (SC), wherein the Apex Court made the following observations: "(45) In Chandra Prakash Saxena [S.L.P. (C) No. 17794 of 2004], the vehicle involved in the accident was a jeep Commander made by Mahindra & Mahindra, a passenger carrying commercial vehicle, and in view of the fact that the driver was holding licence to drive light motor vehicle (LMV), he could not have plied the vehicle in question. For the reasons recorded hereinabove in the main matter of Prabhu Lal, i.e., S.L.P. (C) No. 7370 of 2004, insurance company could not have been held liable and that the appeal also deserves to be allowed.";