- (1.) Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of at the admission stage itself.
(2.) This appeal by the owner is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in (MV) Case No. 66 of 2005 whereby he has awarded compensation of Rs. 3,75,700 and directed the appellant owner of the vehicle to pay the said amount to the claimants.
(3.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass: The claimant-respondent was going by an autorickshaw owned by the appellant. Because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the autorickshaw, it met with an accident causing grievous injury to the claimant. The claimant was admitted to P.M.C.H., Dhanbad from where he was referred to Bokaro Hospital and later on he was treated at Lucknow Hospital. It further appears that injury was caused on the face, jaw and chin of the claimant which resulted in permanent disability. The respondent insurance company contested the case on the ground, inter alia, that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence to drive autorickshaw. In course of hearing of the claim case, before the Tribunal, a copy of the driving licence was produced showing that the driver was authorised to drive light motor vehicle. Since in the driving licence, there was no specific mention about the authority to drive autorickshaw, the Tribunal held that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence to drive autorickshaw. For better appreciation para 14 of the impugned judgment wherein finding regarding driving licence has been discussed, is reproduced herein below: Now I take up issue No. 5. In this case owner of the vehicle has filed WS along with the driving licence of Laxman Pd. Singh. As per photocopy of the driving licence driver was entitled to drive light motor vehicle. Autorickshaw has been crossed by the licensing authority. So apparently driver was entitled only to drive light motor vehicle. As per Section 3 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 no person shall drive a transport vehicle unless he is having a driving licence specifically entitling him for the same. In this case, I find that autorickshaw was being used for the transportation of the passengers on hire, however, driver Laxaman Pd. Singh was not having a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle. There is no other evidence by owner on this point. In spite of service of notice owner has not contested this case. In this case neither owner nor driver has been examined. So I find that on the date of accident driver of the vehicle was not entitled to drive the vehicle. Accordingly, this issue is decided. Legal implication of this finding would be discussed later on.;