Padam Kumar and Another vs Jai Shah and Others

A.K. Gohil, J.—The appellant No. 1, who is the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and the appellant No. 2/cleaner have filed this appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, against the award dated 9.11.2001, passed by the member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shujalpur, in Claim Case No. 16/1999, whereby it exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability, on the ground that the appellant No. 1, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, was not having valid driving licence.

Brief facts of the case are that on 20.3.1999, the appellant No. 1, who was the owner of mini bus No. MP-13/C-4435, was driving the said bus. He was carrying the students of Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Shujalpur to their school. The gate of the vehicle was not properly closed by the cleaner. When the bus was in stationary position, due to negligence gate was opened and one boy Jai Shah, aged 5 years fell down from the said bus and received injuries. The claim petition was filed by the parents. It was contested by the appellant owner/driver and cleaner as also by the Insurance Company. After recording the evidence of the parties the Tribunal found that the accident took place from the said mini bus and awarded a compensation of Rs. 18,500/- with 12% interest thereon, from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation. The Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company on the ground that appellant Padam Kumar, who is the owner and driver of the said bus was not having valid driving licence on the date of accident. On critically examining the evidence on record the Tribunal found that initially appellant Padam Kumar was having a driving licence to drive only tempo and one month prior to the date of accident he has applied for a licence to drive four wheeler light motor vehicle and for that he had also deposited fees through challan before the RTA, Bhopal and, thereafter, an endorsement was made on the licence (Ex. D/2) by the Licensing Authority on 26.3.1999 i.e. 6 days after the accident. The Tribunal has discarded the said endorsement on the ground that the seal and ''signature of the Licensing Authority are not correctly visible and on that ground found that the driver was not having valid licence and exonerated the Insurance Company. The said finding of exonerating the Insurance Company is under challenge in this appeal.

It is clear in this case that the respondent/claimant has not filed any appeal for enhancement of the compensation.

I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the record.

Learned Counsel for the appellants drew my attention on a document Ex. D/1, which has been produced and proved by Anirudh Sharma (D.W. 1), who is an Administrative Officer in the United India Insurance Company, Ujjain. Ex. D/1 is the original copy of the certificate issued by the Licensing Authority, with feel and signatures. It is not disputed by the parties before me that as per document Ex. D/1 appellant Padamsingh was having a driving licence to drive tempo (three. wheeler) only and an endorsement is also available on the said document that the driver is allowed to drive motorcycle + light motor vehicle only w.e.f. 26.3.1999. This copy of the licence has been issued by the Licensing Authority on 8.9.1999. From this endorsement on Ex. D/1 it is clear that on 20.3.1999 though he was not authorised to drive light motor vehicle, but subsequently he was authorised to drive light motor vehicle. This subsequent endorsement clearly proves that on the date of accident he was not disqualified to drive light motor vehicle. The Tribunal, in para 15 of the award, has also discussed the weight of the vehicle.

From the aforesaid discussions it is clear that the Tribunal has not discussed document Ex. D/1 and endorsement thereon in the impugned order and has not recorded a proper finding about the document Ex. D/2-C, which is also the photocopy of the licence. The Tribunal has not considered the document Ex. D/1, which is the original certificate issued by the Licensing Authority, Bhopal and Ex. D/1 is the photocopy of the licence book. In the document Ex. D/1 the original signature and seal are clearly visible and from this certificate it is clear that an endorsement has been made on the driving licence to drive light motor vehicles w.e.f. 26.3.1999. Therefore, according to me the Tribunal has ignored the material document and evidence on record and has not properly considered Ex. D/1 and has wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid evidence and endorsement on Ex. D/1 the finding recorded by the Tribunal about Ex. D/2 is liable to be set aside.

Consequently, this appeal is allowed. The finding on the question of exoneration of the Insurance Company from its liability is set aside and it is held that in view of the document Ex. D/1 the appellant was fully competent to drive the vehicle on the date of accident as the endorsement was made on his licence immediately after the accident i.e., on 26.3.1999 and he was not found to be disqualified for holding a valid driving licence. Accordingly, the award is modified to the extent that the appellants as well as the Insurance Company both are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the award. No order as to costs. Record be returned.