1. In this MAC the challenge levied is to the award dated 25-7-2013 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 48/2012 whereby and whereunder the appellant has also been held liable along with respondents No. 3 and 4 jointly and severely to pay the compensation Rs. 1,82,000/- to respondents No. 1 and 2 within a period of one month from the date of award and also to pay interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of application i.e. 19-10-2011 till its realization.

2. This is admitted by respondent No. 4 that he is the owner of school bus bearing registration No. CG 08 B 5120. Respondent No. 3 was the driver of the said vehicle at the time of the accident. Said vehicle was insured by appellant. On 1-4-2011 at village Indamara, the said bus dashed one person, as a result of which he died. This is also admitted by respondents No. 3 and 4 that at the time of accident respondent No. 3 had a valid driving licence.

3. In brief, the respondents No. 1 and 2 case is that driver of the said vehicle driven it rashly and negligently. Their brother Shankar Bhonde died in that accident.

4. In brief, the case of the respondents No. 3 and 4 is that accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 3, they are not liable to pay compensation.

5. In brief, the case of the appellant/insurance company is that respondent No. 3 had not a valid driving licence to drive the transport vehicle at the time of accident. Thus, liability cannot be fastened on him to pay the compensation. The respondents No. 1 and 2 were not dependent upon the deceased, thus, they are not entitled to get compensation from him.

6. After the conclusion of the trial said claims tribunal passed the aforesaid award. Being aggrieved the appellant has preferred this appeal.

7. Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that at the time of the accident respondent No. 3 was holding learning licence and he was not competent to drive the heavy service transport vehicle bus. He had also violated the rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (in brevity 'Rules, 1989'). The respondent No. 4 had deliberately violated the condition of insurance policy. Thus, the appellant cannot be held liable to pay the compensation to the respondents No. 1 and 2.

8. Counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4 argued that respondent No. 3 had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Thus, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation.

9. None appears for the respondents No. 1 and 2.

10. Points for determination:-

There are following points for determination in the case :-

(I) Whether respondents No. 1 and 2 were not dependent upon the deceased, thus they are entitled to get any compensation from appellant?

(ii) Whether the appellant No. 3 had not a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending bus at the time of the accident ?

(iii) Whether the offending vehicle was driven violating the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy?

(iv) Whether the appellant cannot be held liable to pay the aforesaid compensation along with the respondent No. 3 and 4 jointly and severely ?

(v) Relief and cost ?

Point for determination No.1 findings with reasons:-

11. In the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. Chandigarh v. Nicollertra Rohtagi and others {2002 (7) SC 456} the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that where the conditions precedent embodied in Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereafter called as 'Act, 1988') are satisfied and the accidents claims tribunal passes an order permitted the insurer to avail of the grounds available to the person against whom the claim is made, the insurer can contest the claim on such grounds and in case of an adverse award can file an appeal challenging the quantum of the compensation or the findings regarding negligence of the offending vehicle. Otherwise, mere commission on part of the insured to file an appeal under Section 173 of the Act, 1988 in