Judgment:
ORDER
1. The Insurance Company filed these appeals and revisions against the orders and decrees passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karimnagar, in OP No.522 of 1996 etc. Since all these matters arise out of a single motor accident, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order. The respondents in these appeals are the injured/claimants.
2. The brief facts: On 24-12-1995, the respondents/claimants in all these cases were proceeding on a tractor-trailer bearing No. AP 15-T-4219-4220 from Manakondur village to Alugnoor village for replantation of paddy seedlings in the land of one Salla Kistaiah, When the tractor and trailerreached near Kurmagundlu village at about10.30 a.m., a lorry bearing No.AP-T-8816came in the opposite direction in a rash andnegligent manner at a high speed and dashedagainst the trailer of the tractor, due towhich the trailer turned turtle and allthe claimants fell down and sustainedinjuries. All the injured were shifted tothe Government Hospital, Karimnagar,for treatment and the concerned policeregistered a case against the driver ofthe lorry. The respondents/claimants filedthe OPs claiming compensation beforethe Tribunal, for the injuries sustained bythem.
3. Before the Tribunal, the owner and driver of the lorry remained absent and were set ex parte.
4. The appellant-Insurance Company filed counter denying its liability to pay compensation contending, inter alia, that as on the date of accident there was no valid insurance for the lorry; that the accident took place due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor and that the driver of the lorry did not possess valid driving licence. The Insurance Company claimed protection under Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
5. The claimants/respondents apart from adducing oral evidence, got marked certain documents, viz., medical certificates, first information report, charge-sheet etc.
6. The learned trial Judge,appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both parties, awarded compensation ranging from Rs.2,000/- to Rs.13,000/- in the OPs. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed by the Insurance Company.
7. In these appeals and CRPs, though the respondents are served with notices, none appeared on their behalf in this Court.
8. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the tractor collided with the lorry and that the driver of the lorry did not possess valid driving licence as on the date of accident. He submits that as per Ex.A.5, xerox copy of driving licence, the driver of the lorry was having licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle only and, therefore, he was not eligible to drive a heavy motor vehicle like the lorry. In support of this plea, the appellant-Insurance Company examined RW1, Assistant Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company. Learned Counsel further contended that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Shri Gian Chand and others, 1997 (6) Scale I, wherein it was held that once the driver of the offending vehicle was found not possessing a valid driving licence, the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with liability to pay compensation, particularly in the absence of any evidence either from the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle and therefore the Insurance Company should be exonerated from the liability to pay compensation.
9. I have perused the orders under appeal and the evidence on record. It is seen from Ex.A5, xerox copy of driving licence of the driver of the offending lorry, the driver of the lorry was having licence to drive light motor vehicle only. Unfortunately, the owner and driver of the offending lorry remained absent in the Tribunal and were set ex parts. Whether the licence held by the driver of the offending lorry in this case is sufficient to drive the lorry or not will be within the knowledge of the driver or the owner of the lorry or the concerned officials of the Transport Department. To establish the same, neither the driver nor the owner of the lorry or any official of the Transport Department was examined by the appellant-Insurance Company.
10. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Gian Chand's case (supra) in support of his contention that in the absence of the driver of the offending motor vehicle possessing a valid licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident, the insurance company cannot be fastened with liability to pay compensation. In that decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the question whether the Insurance Company would get exonerated from its liability to meet the claims of third parties for compensation when the driver who caused the accident does not have valid licence. While considering the two lines of decisions rendered by the Supreme Court on this aspect, viz., Skandle Insurance Company Limited v. Kokilaben Chandravadan and others, : [1987]2SCR752 , and New Indian Assurance Company Limited v. Mandar Madhav Tambe and others, : AIR1996SC1150 , the Supreme Court held that in such circumstances the Insurance Company cannot be liable to pay compensation.
11. The facts of the case on hand are entirely different from that of the case before the Supreme Court. In the above decision, the driver of the car who filed written statement before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal admitted that he does not possess a valid driving licence at the relevant time when the accident took place. The owner of the car/respondent No.9 took a stand that he sold away and handed over the car to respondent No.1. But, the trial Court disbelieved the version of respondent No.9/ owner of the car, on the ground that he did not enter the witness box to support his case and in view of the specific pleading and evidence of the driver admitting that he does not possess the valid driving licence, came to the conclusion that the car was handed over to a person who does not have any valid licence and therefore the owner of the car committed breach of the relevant term of the insurance policy andthe Insurance Company will get the benefit of the exclusion clause available, as a defence, under Section 96(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
12. In the cases on hand, the driver of the offending lorry, who was possessing licence to drive a light motor vehicle, has caused the accident. It is the specific pleading of the claimants in this batch of cases that the driver of the lorry was possessing licence to drive light motor vehicles only.
13. Before considering the contentions of the Counsel for the appellant, it is necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act to decide whether the lorry which was involved in the accident is a 'light motor vehicle' or otherwise.
14. According to Section 2(16) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, 'heavy goods vehicle' means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms'. As per Section 2(21) of the said Act 'light motor vehicle' means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceeded (7,500) kilograms'.
15. Whether the vehicle involved in the accident is a 'light motor vehicle' or not, should be determined on the basis of the weight of the motor vehicle. According to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, 'the vehicle which does not exceed 7500 Kgs unladed weight should be treated as 'Light Motor Vehicle'. But, in this case, the appellant-Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence, muchless acceptable evidence, to establish the plea taken by it in the written statement that the offending motor vehicle(viz., the lorry), is not a 'light motor vehicle' and it is as a 'heavy goods vehicle', and hence the driver of the offending lorry is not eligible to drive the same. The Insurance Company must have taken care of these aspects before the Tribunal by examining the concerned officials of the Transport Department to establish the stand taken by it. A party of a legal proceeding should either succeed or fail on its own evidence adduced in support of its pleadings and not on the failure or weakness of the opposite party. No doubt, the owner and driver of the offending lorry in this case remained absent and were set ex parts in the Tribunal below. For that reason along, the Insurance Company cannot be allowed to contend that an automatic right has accrued to it to claim exemption from payment of compensation to third parties/ claimants. There is no effort made by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal to adduce any evidence in support of the pleas taken by it in the written statement. Therefore, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the respective OPs.
16. No material was placed by the Insurance Company before the Tribunal to establish the plea taken by it that the driver of the lorry does not possess a valid driving licence to drive the same. According to the appellant, if an unqualified person drives a motor vehicle and causes an accident, the Insurance Company is not obliged to pay compensation to third parties/ injured in the accident. The Insurance Company having taken a plea that the owner of the vehicle violated the policy conditions, i.e., breach of contract, the burden of proof lies on it to establish the same. The contract of insurance is between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company has taken a plea that the owner of the vehicle violated the conditions of the policy, viz., that the owner of the vehicle allowed aperson (in this case, the driver of the offending lorry), who does not possess a valid licence to drive the vehicle, to drive the same. If the burden is not legally discharged by the Insurance Company by adducing the' necessary evidence, i.e., by examining driver or owner or any other officer of the Motor Vehicles Department, the xerox copy of the driving licence filed by the claimants cannot be made use of by the Insurance Company and it cannot be said to be a sufficient material to-come to conclusion that the driver of the offending lorry does not possess a valid driving licence. The burden to prove that there is a breach of contract of insurance lies on the Insurance Company. The burden could not be said to have been discharged by the Insurance Company by merely relying on a document produced by the opposite party, i.e., claimants/respondent-therein. To substantiate their stand, there is every opportunity given to the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company could have adduced the necessary oral or documentary evidence to substantiate the pleas taken by it, atleast by examining the concerned Officers of the Transport Department. A careful scrutiny of the evidence on record discloses that the Insurance Company failed to establish the plea taken by it in the written statement by adducing any acceptable evidence, that the driver does not have any valid licence beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it cannot now contend that there is a violation of conditions of policy by the owner of the lorry in allowing a person who does not possess a valid driving licence to drive the same. So, for that reason, the Insurance Company cannot escape its liability to pay compensation.
17. In the result, the appeals and CRPs are dismissed. No costs.