( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) at the instance of the Insurance Company challenging the judgement and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 662/95 dated 27/04/2001. This Court had issued notice for summary disposal in response to which learned counsel Mr. Prachchhak has appeared on behalf of respondent no. 1-original claimant, who was also the driver of the scooter in question. Other respondents are absent though served.

( 2 ) APPEAL admitted. Mr. Prachchhak waives service of notice in the appeal on behalf of the respondent no. 1-original claimant.

( 3 ) AS aforesaid, this is an appeal by the Insurance Company challenging the aforesaid award contending that the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award on the ground that the second respondent, who was the driver of the offending vehicle insured by the appellant insurer, had violated one of the essential terms and conditions of the policy, inasmuch as he did not hold an effective driving licence on the date of the accident.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy between the parties it is necessary to set down only a few factual aspects, which are not in controversy. 4. 1 the driver of the Matador (insured by the appellant) had, prior to the accident, held a valid driving licence for the period commencing on 28th January 1992, which expired on 2 7/01/1995. After the expiry of the validity period of the said licence, the driver of the Matador insured by the appellant, met with an accident on 19/03/1995, causing injuries to the claimant. It is obvious, and not in controversy that on the date of the accident the driver of the insured had no valid licence. However, considerably after the date of the accident, the driver obtained a renewal of the expired licence, and the renewed licence was valid from 12/09/1995 upto 1 1/09/1998. As aforesaid, these facts are not in controversy.

( 5 ) THE appellant Insurance Company contends that since the driver of the insured did not hold an "effective" driving licence on the date of the accident, this violates one of the essential terms and conditions of the policy issued in favour of the insured. For this reason the Insurance Company submits that it is not liable to satisfy the award. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Insurance Company is liable, in spite of the fact that on the date of the accident the claimant did not hold a valid driving licence, on account of the fact that the renewal of the licence demonstrates that he was "not disqualified from holding an effective driving licence".

( 6 ) THE policy in question is at Exh. 24 on record. The relevant clause pertaining to authorisation of persons who are entitled to drive reads as under:"any person including the insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. . . "it is this clause which is the subject matter of controversy between the parties. The controversy focuses around the question as to whether this clause, in its two parts, divided by the word "and", should be read in the conjunctive sense or should be read in the adjunctive sense.

( 7 ) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the claimant, once it is shown that the claimant was not disqualified from holding a license, it is not necessary that the claimant must and should have held an effective licence on the date of the accident. On the other hand learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submits that in order to escape the operation of the proviso, the person who is driving the vehicle should hold an effective driving licence at the time of the accident, and must also not be disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence.

( 8 ) IN order to examine this controversy in its correct context and