Vehicles Act, 1988, “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 exceed 7,500 kilograms. As such, the offending vehicle was light motor vehicle and as per the statement of Mr. Pawan Kumar Sahu (NAW-3), clerk from RTO, the driver appellant No.1 did have the license to drive the light motor vehicle. Similarly, though the Insurance Company took the plea that the driver did not have valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle, but in order to prove the said defence, only Mr. Raghavendra Raghuvanshi (NAW2), Assistant Manager (Law), has been examined who has simply stated that the driver did not have valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle and the offending vehicle did not have permit and fitness as required, nothing more than that has been stated. Further, the offending vehicle in question is admittedly registered as passenger carrying vehicle and sitting capacity of the same is 1 + 5 persons. But no evidence has been led by the Insurance Company except the self-serving statement of the officer of the Company – Mr. Raghavendra Raghuvanshi (NAW-2), Assistant Manager (Law); in other words, there is no legally admissible evidence available on record nor any evidence led by the Insurance Company that the offending vehicle was carrying more than six persons. Since the driver did have valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle and the another plea that the vehicle was carrying more than six persons has not been proved, the plea of the Insurance Company that the vehicle did not have valid permit and fitness has not been proved. Therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal is absolutely unjustified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability of
