JUDGMENT

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Award dated 7th July of 2015 passed by the Learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ADJ 1st Court Paschim Medinipur in MAC Case No. 173 of 2010.

2. The brief fact of the case is that the present appellants being the claimants have preferred an application u/s- 166of MV Act before the Learned Tribunal for getting compensation on the ground that their predecessor was died in a road traffic accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle due to insured under the policy of the Insurance company.

3. The claim case was contested by the Insurance Company by filing the written statement. After hearing the parties the Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,29,500/- in favour of the claimants towards the compensation and directed the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation.

4. The owner has not paid the compensation, so the instant appeal has been preferred by the claimants for enhancement of the award and for necessary direction.

5. Learned Advocate for the appellants submits that there are only two points to be decided in this appeal.

Firstly, the Learned Tribunal has committed error by directing the owner of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license at the time of the accident.

Secondly, the Learned Tribunal has not considered the principle of future prospects and general damages by virtue law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Prany Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680.

6. Heard the Learned Advocate.

7. Perused the materials on record and also perused relevant decisions cited by the rival parties.

8. The admitted fact of the case is that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid driving license at the time of accident.

9. The Learned Tribunal by virtue of decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court passed in FMAT 856 of 2011 has decided the issue that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, and the owner must be directed to pay the compensation.

10. Learned Advocate for the appellant submits that by virtue of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh AIR 2004 SC 1531, the order of pay and recovery may be made, The law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (Supra) is a good law and well accepted by of all concern. So, he submits that the decision of Learned Tribunal is erroneous.

11. Learned Advocate for the Insurance Company submits that the Division Bench of this court in FMAT 856 of 2011 as considered the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra) and of opinion that the view cannot be accepted.

12. Heard the Learned Advocates.

13. Perused the observation of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh (supra)

14. Summary of findings:

(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object.

(ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163 A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.

(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in subsection (2)(a)(ii) of section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer.