V.B. Gupta, J.

1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed the present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short as Act) challenging the judgment, dated 11th January, 2008 passed by Sh. J.P.S. Malik, Judge MACT.

2. The facts of this case are that on 14th June, 2000, the deceased Rajesh Saha died due to injuries received by him in an accident near Ganda Nala, Sarai Kalen Khan, Delhi. This accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. DIG 4727 which was being driven by respondent No. 4. The vehicle in question is owned by respondent No. 5 and insured with the appellant. The deceased was doing the work of Kabari and the offending vehicle was dumping the garbage and was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver.

3. Vide impugned judgment, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. Rs. 2,80,005/- along with simple interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition.

4. It has been contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the owner as well as driver did not produce the driving license in spite of notice under Order 12 Rule 8 CPC given to them and as such adverse inference has to be drawn against them. It is further contended that the insured has committed the breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. thereforee, the insurer is entitled to the recovery of awarded amount from the owner of the offending vehicle and the present case is of a no driving license and as such the award passed by the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decision of Allahabad High court in Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. v. Indrasani Devi and Ors. MANU/UP/2179/2005, in support of its contentions.

6. Chapter XI of the Act, 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.

7. Section 149 of the Act provides as follows;

149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.-

.(1) x x x

.(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under Sub-section (1)in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court, or as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely:

.(a) x x x x

.(i) x x x x

.(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 license during the period of disqualifications;

(iii) x x x x

8. In a plethora of cases, the Apex Court and various High Courts have held that, if there is a condition in the insurance policy that only a licensed driver is to drive the vehicle, the insurance company would not be liable in case there is a breach.

9. There could be no doubt that in order to escape liability, not only it should be proved that the driver of the vehicle was not having a license at the time of the accident, but also the insurance company should prove that the driver was disqualified from holding or obtaining a license or never had any license at all. Merely proving that on the date of the accident, the driver did not have a licence, is not enough to hold that the insurance company is not liable for claim. The onus of proving that the driver of the vehicle never had a lice