JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. K. R. Bora, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H. Buragohan, learned counsel for the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No. 3.

2. The present appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Award dated 31.12.2010, passed in MAC Case No. 646/2008 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC No. 2) cum Member of MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati.

3. The background facts of the case is that the present appellant preferred a claim petition being MAC Case No. 648/2008 claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident.

4. It is the case of the claimant that on 12.12.2007, while claimant was returning from his office ie. Airport Authority India by driving his Maruti Car bearing registration No. AS-01E-4786 in a very normal speed, at about 10:30 PM, at Ballapar, the offending Truck bearing registration No. AS-17-0347, knocked down his Maruti Car from behind and as a result of the accident, he sustained injuries.

5. The case proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party No. 1 and 2 i.e. the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively. However, Insurance Company contested the case by filing written statement.

6. Amongst other usual pleas, the Insurance Company took a plea that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle may not be a valid one.

7. The claimant to prove his claim, examined himself as the witness and exhibited documents in proof of his injury and accident etc. the Insurance Company in support of their contention, examined two witnesses. DW-1, is the Insurance Investigator, who had exhibited one report from the DTO, Nagaon, which discloses that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was not renewed on the date of the accident (12.12.2007) and the same expired on 01.01.2007.

8. In the aforesaid backdrop, though the learned tribunal below had held that the claimant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.3,40,200/-only along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the case till payment, however, the learned tribunal below held that as the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was not a valid driving license on the date of accident as it was not renewed and its validity expired, therefore, liability to pay such compensation is upon the owner of the vehicle and not upon the Insurance Company.

9. Mr. K. R. Bora, learned counsel for the appellant only urged that the learned tribunal below has committed serious error of law by directing the payment of the compensation to the owner of the vehicle, however, in the given facts and circumstances, the learned tribunal ought to have issued a direction of payment and recovery. In support of his contention, Mr. Bora, learned counsel relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Chandra Singh –Vs-Rajaram and Ors reported in 2018 8 SCC 799.

10. Per contra, Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company countering such argument submits that the award was granted in the year 2010 and the appellant preferred the appeal, immediately thereafter in the year 2011. However, the appellant has not filed any application for execution of the award till date inasmuch as there was no bar to do the same during the entire period. Therefore, he submits that in the aforesaid backdrop, this appeal should be dismissed and the appellant should be relegated to the execution proceeding.

11. This Court has given anxious considerations to the arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials available on record.

12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in PEPSU Road Transport Corporation –Vs-National Insurance Company reported in (2013) 10 SCC 217, after considering different decisions on the Hon’ble Apex Court laid the following principles:-

I. It is open to the insurer under Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed.

II. If such defenc