- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant insurance company and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 driver. None has appeared for the respondent no.3/owner as well as the claimants despite service.
(2.) THE instant appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgment and award dated 19.5.2009 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur in Motor Accident Claim Case No.292/2006 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.70,030/ - to the respondent no.1 in relation to the injuries received in a road accident and held the appellant insurance company, the owner and the driver of the offending company jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award. Learned counsel for the appellant has fairly conceded that the claim has already been indemnified by the appellant insurance company by making the payment of awarded amount. He, however, submits that direction given by the Tribunal whilst rejecting the defences of the insurance company and holding it to be jointly and severally liable to satisfy the award, is illegal. He contends that the specific defence of the insurance company was that the vehicle in question was a transport vehicle (Tempo). The driver Taslim Khan on the date of accident i.e. 1.6.2005 was holding a license authorising him to drive only a motorcycle and a light motor vehicle. The license authorising him to drive the transport vehicle was issued by the Licensing Authority, Udaipur on 24.12.2008 and was valid till 23.12.2011. He further submits that the logic and the reasoning expressed by the Tribunal holding the light motor vehicle and the light passenger carrying vehicle to be in the same category is illegal in view of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ram Kumar Vs. Mangal Chand & Ors. (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.842/2009) decided on 28.11.2013. He submits that the controversy is no longer alive now because this Court whilst considering in detail the spectrum of judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Hon'ble Court including the judgment of Annappa Irappa Nesariya relied by the Tribunal, held that a person having a license to drive the light motor vehicle is not authorised to drive a transport vehicle irrespective of its weight. Thus, he submits that the award passed by the Tribunal be altered and the direction whereby the learned Tribunal held the appellant insurance company to be jointly and severally liable along with the owner and driver of the offending vehicle to satisfy the award be reversed. Consequently, the insurance company be given liberty to recover the amount from the insured by filing execution proceedings.
(3.) NO one has appeared for the respondent no.3, the owner of the insured vehicle, to oppose the appeal. Ms. Anjana Jawa for Shri Harish Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 driver has opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company.;