R.M.Prasad, J.

1. This miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.5.1999 passed in Claim Case No. 18 of 1993 by the 1st Additional District Judge, Siwan, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,78,960 with the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum and on failure to pay the said amount within two months interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum till the realisation of the amount from the date of filing of petition.

2. In short, the relevant facts are that the deceased aged about 43 years met with an accident and died on 18.2.1993. Admittedly, the vehicle was insured with the appellant company. However, it is contended that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify as the driver of the vehicle in question did not have valid licence to drive passenger carrying vehicle and, thus, there has been violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the impugned judgment is also bad in law as the learned Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15 to determine the amount of compensation in terms of the provisions of the Schedule contained under the Act which came into force on 14.11.94, whereas the accident took place before that, i.e., on 18.2.1993. He also contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in law in fixing 18 per cent as the rate of interest on failure to pay the awarded amount within two months from the date of filing of the petition, when the Supreme. Court as well as this court has awarded such interest only after the judgment on appeal.

3. In support of first contention that the company is not liable to indemnify compensation as there has been violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy he relied upon sec. 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to show that the driver, who was driving the transport vehicle in question was required to hold valid driving licence to drive such vehicle, but in the present case the driver had a licence for light motor vehicle and heavy motor vehicle on the date of accident and not to drive a transport vehicle.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that there is no substance in the said submission, more-so, because there was no such defence or pleading taken on behalf of the appellant that the driver did not have valid licence except producing certificate of District Transport Officer, Chapra, Exh. B, a xerox copy whereof has been annexed as Annex-ure-1. He also contended that there was no issue raised with respect to the above. As such, according to learned counsel for the respondents it is not open for the appellant now to raise such question. Moreover, in view of the admitted fact that the driver had a valid licence for light motor vehicle as well as heavy motor vehicle the contention on behalf of the appellant that there has been contravention of Sec. 3 or of the insurance policy is wholly misconceived and not tenable.

5. This court finds substance in She said submission of the learned counsel for the respondents. It is useful to quote sec. 3 hereunder:

3. Necessity for driving licence.- (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Sub-sec. (2) of sec. 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.

(2) The conditions subject to which Sub-sec. (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

Under such provision no person can drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person can so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or a motor cyc