G. P. Mittal, J.

1. This Appeal is directed against a judgment dated 27.05.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) whereby while awarding a compensation of Rs.50,655/- in favour of the Respondent No.3, recovery rights were granted in favour of the First Respondent, to recover the compensation paid from Respondent No.2 and the Appellant(the driver and the owner of the offending maruti car No.DL-3C-Z-0346).

2. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that it was not proved that the Respondent No.2 was the Appellant’s employee; thus, the Appellant could not have been held vicariously liable for the act of the Second Respondent. It is stated that the Second Respondent was a friend of the Appellant’s husband. Since the Second Respondent was not Appellant’s driver, she had no opportunity to verify the licence and cannot be said to have committed willful breach of the terms of the policy. While dealing with the question of the liability, the Claims Tribunal held as under:

“11. R3/Insurance Company has disputed its liability on the ground that R1 was not having a valid and effective driving license as on the date of the accident. Two witn