Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(III) A driving licence issued under this section shall not entitle the holder to drive any motor vehicle except a motor vehicle referred to in sub-section (1).
(IV) The authority issuing any driving licence under this section shall, at the request of any State Government, furnish such information respecting any person to whom a driving licence is issued as that Government may at any time require.

36. The original driving licence of deceased driver is on record (as paper no.25-C). The perusal of it reveals that it has been issued for twenty years i.e, from 21.12.2006 to 20.12.2026 and is valid to drive light motor vehicle (NT)/motor cycle.

68. Deceased admittedly was employee of owner of the vehicle,so, the legal heir of deceased driver of Vikram Tempo have an option to file the claim either before motor accident claims tribunal or before commissioner of workmen's compensation act as provided under section 167 of the M.V. Act.

69. The vehicle was insured under the Act policy. The driver is covered thereunder, therefore, he falls within the category of third party as held in by the Division Bench of this court in FAFO NO. 893 OF 2009 (NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD VRS. GITA MISHRA) decided on 06.08.2012.

72. From the perusal of the written statement of insurance company, it reveals that Insurance Company also not taken any plea of negligence of the deceased driver. The claim was contested on the ground that driver was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle was being driven against the terms of the insurance policy. No evidence has been adduced on the ground of negligence of the deceased driver by the insurance company too. Witness Ghanshyam Singh OPW 2, has been examined who stated on oath about the driving licence of the deceased driver and stated that the licence of the driver was valid for motorcycle and light motor vehicle and not for transport vehicle. The insurance company established this fact that driver was not having a valid driving license to drive the vehicle in question but this by itself is not sufficient to establish the negligence of the deceased driver.

73. In view of above facts and circumstances, the owner and insurance company neither pleaded nor proved that the accident was occurred due to sole negligence of the deceased driver.

74. Therefore in this case, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the tribunal on structural formula basis in the light of second schedule of M.V.Act is not liable to be interfered . We find no justification at present to debar the claimant respondent from getting determined compensation in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Sinitha's case (Supra).