G. Radhakrishna Rao, J.:— The lower court awarded an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation with interest at the rate of 10 per cent from the date of the petition till the date of deposit into the court. Out of the amount awarded, each petitioner is entitled for Rs. 7,500/-. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of the compensation that has been granted and also being dissatisfied with regard to the finding that has been given by the court that the insurance company is not liable, the petitioners filed this appeal.
2. On a perusal of the evidence, it has been found from the entries in Exh. A-2 that the driver who drove the vehicle is not having the valid licence to drive the lorry. Mere fact that he was in possession of the driving licence for a light motor vehicle does not mean that he is having a valid licence. What is valid licence has to be considered with reference to the vehicle that was involved in the accident. Since different classes of licences are there and different periods and experience has been required for having those licences, it cannot be said that a person who is having a light motor vehicle licence can drive the vehicle wherein it requires, under the rules, heavy motor vehicle licence. In this case, the vehicle involved is the lorry and admittedly, the driver was not having a licence for driving the lorry, Under those circumstances, the court was perfectly justified in arriving at the conclusion that the insurance company is not liable to pay him. With regard to the compensation, this court feels that reasonable assessment has been made and it does not warrant any interference.
3. The claimants are entitled for 12 per cent interest as against 10 per cent that has been granted by the court. It is a hard case. But on the facts, it does not warrant any interference with the quantum of compensation or with regard to the liability of the insurance company.
4. Subject to the above observation, the CMA is dismissed. No costs.
5. Appeal dismissed.