J.K. Ranka, J. - (1.) This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 28.5.2003 passed in claim petition No.121/2000.
(2.) The brief facts as merging on the face of record are that while Pramila was going to her farm house with her mother and while crossing the road met with an accident by a Jeep bearing No. RJ-23G 0658 and it is the claim of the claimants that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by driver Ladu Ram. On account of the said accident, the deceased was dragged more than 30-35 yards. She sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death on the spot. An FIR was lodged against driver Ladu Ram. Charge-sheet was submitted in the appropriate court against the driver. On account of the said death, a claim petition was filed as aforesaid and after analysing the facts and material on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the claimants partly and awarded an amount of Rs.1,20,000/- in total.
(3.) Mr. S.R. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driver was not having a valid licence to drive a jeep, which is a commercial vehicle, in the instant case because the jeep was being used as a commercial vehicle for the purpose of loading and unloading. A driver possessed a licence to drive light motor vehicle but not a commercial vehicle, as in the instant case though he fairly admits that jeep falls within the definition of light motor vehicle, but since the same was being used for commercial purposes, therefore, it's licence had to be separatly taken to drive it for commercial purposes and since he did not possess a valid licence, therefore, there was a breach of condition of the policy. In this regard the officer also appeared before the Tribunal and led evidence in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per Section 14(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act while a licence to drive light motor vehicle is for a period of 20 years, check and balances have been taken in case licence is for commercial purposes and it is only for 3 years, so that one person, who is driving commercial vehicle undergoes tests under the Motor Vehicles Act every 3 years. He submits that when it is an admitted position that he was not having a valid licence, therefore, the Tribunal is unjustified to direct the appellant Company to pay the amount as awarded by it, initially to the claimants and then to recover the same from the owner/driver. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai & Ors., reported in 2006 ACJ 1336 and also judgment of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhema & Ors., reported in 2009 ACJ 2494 . He submitted that ultimately the direction ought to have given not to pay the balance amount to the claimants and even the amount which has already been paid be directed to be recovered from the owner/driver.;