- (1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant-owner aggrieved by the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 25.4.2001.
(2.) Shri Sanjay Mehrishi, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the insurance company has been wrongly absolved of its liability to indemnify the owner for payment of compensation to the claimant. It was argued that unladen weight of the vehicle, which was mini bus was 7500 kg and therefore in view of definition clause 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it would be a "light motor vehicle". The driver possessed the licence to drive a light motor vehicle and therefore it cannot be said that he was not authorised to drive a mini bus. Learned counsel for the appellants in support of his arguments referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1999 6 SCC 620and argued that Supreme Court in that case was dealing with a case where the vehicle was neither having a permit for a goods carriage nor carrying any goods on the date of accident, such a vehicle even though designed to be used as a goods carrier or transport vehicle was held to be remained a light motor vehicle and was not a light goods vehicle or a transport vehicle. Hence licence to drive a light motor vehicle issued in Form 6, was held to be effective and valid licence to drive such a vehicle. This was held because unladen weight of that vehicle was 5920 kg.
(3.) Shri Prashant Chahar, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal and submitted that judgement of Supreme Court relied on by learned counsel for the appellant has been held to be not a good law in the subsequent judgement in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Angad Kol, 2009 11 SCC 356. It was argued that even otherwise unladen weight of the vehicle has not been proved in this case, besides the vehicle was used as a transport vehicle to carry the passengers. Counsel submits that the Tribunal for that reason exonerated the insurance company from the liability to pay the compensation.;