Both these appeals have arisen out of a common judgment and award dated 04.12.2008 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Honnavar (henceforth referred to as ‘The Tribunal’, for brevity) in MVC No.238/2003.

2. The appellant in MFA No.20481/2009, who was respondent No.1 in the Tribunal, was the owner of the alleged offending vehicle bearing registration No.KA-20/550. The appellant in the MFA No.21233/2009, who was the 2nd respondent in the Tribunal, was the insurer of the said vehicle bearing registration No.KA-20/550.

3. The appellant/owner in MFA No.20481/2009 in his memorandum of appeal has taken a contention that the Tribunal has lost sight of the material fact on record that the appellant has been holding a valid driving licence since the year 1984, however, it expired on 12.02.2001, which was got renewed on 25.02.2001. It was only in the interregnum period of one year 13 days, during which period the driving licence was not got renewed, the alleged incident has occurred on 20.09.2001. Since the same being an act of non-renewal of driving licence, it cannot be considered as a disqualification of the driver from holding or obtaining driving licence. The appellant has further contended that the exclusion contained in the policy used the word ‘and’. The Tribunal had not properly interpreted the said word which resulted in the Tribunal passing an erroneous judgment. With this, it is prayed for fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company to pay the compensation.

The appellant/Insurance Company in MFA No.21233/2009 in its memorandum of appeal has taken a contention that the direction of the Tribunal in asking the insurer to pay the compensation and thereafter to recover it is opposed to para 77 and 100 of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Swaran Singh reported in 2004 (1) T.A.C. 321. With this it is prayed for setting aside the judgment and award under appeal.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to with the ranks they were holding in the Tribunal as the owner and insurer of the vehicle respectively.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/owner in his argument reiterated the contention taken up by him in his memorandum of appeal. He further submitted that, when there is no express disqualification of the driver of the vehicle, mere non-renewal of the driving licence, though may show that there was no effective and valid driving licence as on the date of accident, but it does not result in disqualification of the driver. He gave more emphasis on the terms used in the Insurance Policy and submitted that, mere non-possession of the driving licence is not sufficient, but at the same time he should have been disqualified, it is only then the insurer would be exonerated from its liability.

The learned counsel for the insurer in reply to the said argument of the owner of the vehicle submitted that, when the admitted fact remains to be the driving licence not being in force, the contention of disqualification goes along with it and as such, no specific disqualification is required.

6. The learned counsel for the owner in his argument relied upon a judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohammed Sab Ali Sab Kaladagi & Ors. reported in ILR 1998 KAR 4014. In the said case, which pertains to a motor accident claim matter, this Court while analyzing Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, was pleased to observe that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle in that case has expired and had not been renewed as on the date of accident. The insurer contended that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation as the driver had no effective driving licence. The argument addressed before the Court was that, the policy issued in the said case had used the word ‘and’, when in fact under Section 149(2)(a)(ii), the word used was ‘or’. The said Section is