The interpretation of the word 'and' in the insurance policy and the burden of proof on the insurance company to establish the driver's disqualification were central legal points established in the judgment.

( 1 ) THE insurance company has challenged the liability to satisfy the compensation of Rs. 83,500 awarded in mvc No. 761 of 1992 for the death of basheer Ahamed, son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and husband of respondent No. 3 and father of respondent Nos. 4 to 7. On the date of accident, i. e. , on 13. 10. 1992 at about 8. 20 a. m. , the deceased was going on his Luna moped bearing No. CNQ 43 towards Shahapet. When he was so going near KSFC office from the opposite side, one lorry bearing No. MYZ 7844 was coming at high speed driven rashly and negligently and the said lorry dashed against the deceased Basheer Ahamed resulting in his death on the spot. The respondents who are the L. Rs. of the deceased, filed the MVC petition before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has awarded the above stated compensation holding that the appellant is liable to satisfy the award. Being aggrieved by this, the present appeal arises.

( 2 ) THE main contention of the appellant according to Mr. S. P. Shankar is that on the date of the accident, the driver of the lorry had no effective driving licence. As such, the insurance company cannot be saddled with the burden of satisfying the award. On the other hand, Mr. B. S. Patil, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that although the licence of the driver was not renewed on the date of accident, he did not suffer from any disqualifications. As such there was no violation of the condition enumerated in the policy. According to section 149 (2) of the Motor vehicles Act, the driver must suffer from disqualification, otherwise the insurance company is estopped from taking up any other contention than satisfying the award. In the light of these rival submissions when other facts are not in dispute, namely, place, time and date of accident, it has to be seen whether there are any grounds to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal.

( 3 ) AT the outset it has to be seen in respect of the relevant provisions regarding driving licence, necessity of driving licence, granting of licence, currency of licence to drive the motor vehicle, renewal of driving licence. The renewal of driving licence has been covered under sections 2 (10), 3, 9, 14 and 15. Its validity is covered by sections 19, 20, 130, 134 and 185 of the act. It is not necessary to reproduce all these sections. What is required in this appeal is that whether on the date of the accident, the driver had been duly licensed or not. More often, the insurance company takes shelter under section 149 (2) (a) (ii ). The insurance company always takes up the defence as enumerated under section 149 (2) (a) and (b) to avoid the liability and takes up the defence that the person who was driving the vehicle on the date of the accident was not duly licensed and it would disqualify him from holding or obtaining the licence during the period of disqualification.

( 4 ) IT is pertinent to note that the alleged accident took place in this case on 13. 10. 1992. The period of driving licence had expired on 9. 6. 1988 and it was got renewed on 3. 11. 1992 for a period up to 2. 11. 1995. According to the appellant since the renewal was done on 3. 11. 1992, on the date of accident, i. e. , on 13. 10. 92, the driver was not duly licensed. For the sake of more clarification, section 149 (2) (a) (ii) is reproduced:" (II) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification. "

( 5 ) THE wording used as 'or' assumes much importance in this case. According to the construction of this section, the insurance company can succeed only if the person was not duly licensed or he was disqualified from holding or obtaining the driving licence during the period of disqualification. According to the construction of the language either of the conditions has to be duly fulfilled. But in the policy issued t