D.R Deshmukh, J.:— Heard.
2. Brief facts are that on 1.12.1997, a minibus bearing No. MP 24-C 2614 being driven by respondent No. 3, upon bursting of a tyre, turned turtle causing injuries to claimants-passengers. Injured passengers-claimants preferred applications for compensation. Learned Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bemetara passed a common order dated 3.10.2001 and awarded compensation to the victims as under:
(a) Claimant Shyam Sunder, Claim Case No. 1 of 1998 (compensation awarded Rs. 25,000 with interest).
(b) Claimant Ramji, Claim Case No. 2 of 1998 (compensation awarded Rs. 3,000 with interest).
(c) Claimant Ram Bai, Claim Case No. 14 of 1998 (compensation awarded Rs. 92,500 with interest).
(d) Claimant Chhedi Singh, Claim Case No. 17 of 1998 (compensation awarded Rs. 4,000 with interest).
3. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant insurer that the ill-fated minibus was under a policy of insurance by the appellant on the date of the accident. The fact that the claimants mentioned above were passengers in the minibus and sustained injuries due to the bus turning turtle and that the respondent No. 3 driver had a valid driving licence for driving light motor vehicle are also not disputed. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that the insurance company is willing to pay the entire compensation as awarded by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that since Ramesh Kumar Sahu, the driver of the ill-fated minibus did not possess a valid driving licence for driving commercial vehicles or heavy motor vehicles but possessed only a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, the insurer had satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of section 149 read with sub-section (7) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and, therefore, the learned M.A.C.T ought to have granted the right to the insurer to recover from the owner of minibus, i.e, Kishanlal, respondent No. 2 the compensation paid by it under the award. Reliance was placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC).
4. On the other hand, Mr. P.P Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, i.e, the claimant and owner has argued that the accident was in no manner attributable to any negligence on the part of the driver and occurred solely due to bursting of a tyre. It was urged that bursting of a tyre being an unforeseen cause having no nexus with the driver not possessing the requisite type of licence, the appellant insurer could neither avoid its liability to pay compensation nor be given the right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Reliance was placed on para 89 of the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Having heard rival contentions, I have perused the record of Claim Case No. 1 of 1998 and the testimony of Ramesh Kumar Sahu, the driver of the offending vehicle (respondent No. 3) and also the testimony of claimants Shyam Sunder, Ramji, Ram Bai and Chhedi Singh who were travelling in the ill-fated minibus which clearly demonstrates that upon sudden bursting of tyre of the ill-fated minibus when the driver suddenly applied brakes, the minibus turned turtle. In this view of the matter, I rm of the considered opinion that the accident occurred solely due to an unforeseen cause, i.e, sudden bursting of tyre.
6. In National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), the Apex Court has dealt with such a situation in para 82:
“(82) Section 3 of the Act casts on obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of the said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) motor cycle without gear, (b) motor cycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road-roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 10. They are ‘goods carriage’, ‘heavy goods vehicle’, ‘heavy passenger motor vehicle’, ‘invalid carriage’, ‘light motor vehicle’, ‘maxi-cab’, ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger motor vehicle’, ‘motor-cab’, ‘motor cycle’, ‘omnibus’, ‘private service vehicle’, ‘semi-trailer’, ‘tourist vehicle’, ‘tractor’, ‘trailer’ and ‘transport vehicle’. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal. A person possessing a driving licence for ‘motor cycle without gear’ (sic may be driving a vehicle), for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for ‘light motor vehicle’ is found to be driving a ‘maxi-cab’, ‘motor-cab’ or ‘omnibus’ for which he has no licence. In each case, on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.”
7. Applying the law laid down by the Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that although the driver of the minibus possessed a valid driving licence only for L.M.V and not for any commercial vehicle or minibus, yet since the accident was not attributable to any negligence on the part of minibus driver, respondent No. 3, Ramesh Kumar Sahu but occurred solely due to sudden bursting of a tyre which the owner of the vehicle was required to keep in good condition, the breach of the condition of driving licence not being fundamental did not in any manner contribute to the cause of the accident and, therefore, the insurer cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation and the present case is not a fit case to grant the insurer the right to recover compensation from the owner of the vehicle.
8. In this view of the matter, the contention of the appellant must fail. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
9. Appeal dismissed.