Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J.

1. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company to question its liability to pay compensation to the respondent Nos.2 to 4 under judgment and award dated 31.12.2010 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Jamnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 92 of 2003. The appellant-Insurance Company wants to avoid its liability to pay the compensation on the ground that the driver of the offending tanker No. GTY-5660 was not holding valid driving license to drive such category of transport vehicle which carries hazardous or dangerous substance.

2. The facts bereft of unnecessary details giving rise to the present appeal are that the deceased-Kawalsingh Sachhasingh was going on foot near sikka patiya, near express hotel on 16.11.2002. At that time, driver of tanker, bearing registration No. GTY-5660 came at very high and excessive speed and dashed him down. He suffered fatal injuries and died. At the relevant time, the offending tanker was owned by respondent No. 1 and was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. The respondent Nos.2 to 4 being legal heirs and representatives of the deceased-Kawalsingh Sachhasingh filed MACP No. 92 of 2003 in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamnagar to recover Rs. 8,72,000/- as compensation from the respondent No.1 and appellant-Insurance Company. The Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award partly allowed the Claim Petition and directed the appellant and respondent No.1 to pay a sum of Rs.4,48,000/- as compensation to the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 jointly and severally.

3. The appellant-Insurance Company wants to avoid its liability on sole ground that at the relevant point of time the driver of the offending tanker was not holding a valid and effective license to drive transport vehicle meant to carry hazardous substance, therefore, this appeal.

4. I have heard Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant, Mr. Sandeed N. Bhatt, learned advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. Makbul I. Mansuri, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

5. Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for the appellant submits that admittedly, the offending tanker was meant for transporting hazardous substance and the driver of the tanker was holding license to drive only L.M.V., H.G.V. and passenger vehicles. Though, the tanker was falling under L.M.V. Category, there was no endorsement on the license of the driver to authorized him to drive such a vehicle meant for transporting hazardous goods. He further submits that under the provision of Sub-Section 2(a) to Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act, license to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature can be effective for a period of one year which can be renewed on condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus. Therefore, he submits that since the driver was not holding requisite license, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability to pay the compensation on the appellant. In support of his submission, he has relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sony Cheriyan, AIR 1999 SC 3252.

6. He further submits that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants, liberty may be reserved in favour of the appellant to recover the compensation from the respondent No. 1-owner of the vehicle under Section 149(4) of the M.V. Act. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on unreported decision dated 08.05.2014 of this Court in First Appeal No.3289 of 2013 between United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Bhikhubhai Amarsinhbhai Parmar and others., and one another unreported decision dated 03.05.2016 in First Appeal No. 2515 of 2015 between United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Jayrambhai Mavjibhai Desai (Rabari) and another.

7. Mr. Mansuri, learned advocate for the respondent Nos.