JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the

insurer was not liable as the driver had a fake licence is the

question to be decided in this appeal?

3) BACKGROUND FACTS:

One Ramdhan, who was husband of appellant No.1 and father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 who were minor children, died in a motor vehicle accident while he was going on his bicycle and hit by a truck bearing Registration No. CPW 7344 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.2 herein, owned by respondent No.1 herein and was insured by respondent No.3 herein National Insurance Company. According to the appellants/claimants at the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 36 years and working as a carpenter and he was getting an income of Rs.125/- to Rs.150/- per day. The claimants filed claim case No. 154 of 1997 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore claiming a total compensation of Rs. 7 lacs under Sections 166A and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Respondent No.3 filed a written statement denying the claim and also pleaded that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence on the date of the accident. The Tribunal based on the materials placed and the evidence on record found that death was caused due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. On 08.02.2000, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,56,000/- to the appellants along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim application. The respondent No.3-Insurance Company was exonerated from its liability to pay compensation on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident.

4) Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the claimants filed Misc. Appeal No. 1665/2002 in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore challenging the quantum of the award as well as exoneration of respondent No.3-Insurance Company from its liability of making payment of compensation to them. The High Court, considering the merits of the case and finding that duplicate licence was issued to respondent No.2 who is not having a valid and effective licence on the date of the accident, held that Insurance Company was not liable for the compensation amount as determined. However, considering the merits of the case, age and income of the deceased and dependents being wife and minor children enhanced the compensation amount to Rs.3,50,000/- and directed respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. owner and driver of the

vehicle to pay the same. The review petition filed by the appellants in Misc. Civil Case No. 41 of 2004 exonerating respondent No.3 from its liability has been dismissed by the

High Court by order dated 22.04.2004. Questioning those orders, the claimants filed the present appeal after obtaining leave.

5) Heard Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. Manjeet Chawla, learned counsel for the 3rd respondent and none appeared for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 perused the materials placed before us and the annexures

filed.

6) In this appeal, the appellants mainly concerned about the orders of the Tribunal and the High Court exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability. Before considering the relevant decisions of this Court and the issue in question, let us note certain factual details. The first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.2 is the driver of the said vehicle, who is none other than the brother of the first respondent. Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company contended that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. Considering the materials in the form of oral and documentary evidence placed by the Insurance Company the Tribunal found that opposite party No.2, namely, driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective licence on the date of the accident. Based on the said conclusio