The insurance company is not liable to pay compensation if the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving license. The owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation in such cases.

1. - Disputing its liability to make payment of the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal on the ground that admittedly the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed this Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act") against the judgment and award dated 12.8.1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Kota in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 275/1993. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 75,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum as compensation to the respondent-claimants on account of death of Shri Jagdish, aged eight years, who was son of the claimants.

2. Brief relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that the claimant-respondents No. 1 and 2, who are parents of deceased-Shri Jagdish, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act on 24.2.1993 before the learned Tribunal with the averment that on 14.12.1992 at about 11.00 a.m. when deceased-Shri Jagdish alongwith his mother (the claimant-respondent-Smt. Janki Bai) was going on foot, a vehicle Jeep bearing registration No. Rs.- 5651 being driven by its driver with negligence and rashness hit the deceased resulting fatal injuries to him. The respondent-claimants claimed Rs. 2,69,500/- as compensation. The appellant-Insurance Company filed written statement and apart from others, pleaded that at the time of the said accident the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not having a valid and effective driving licence and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. It was further pleaded that the owner insured of the vehicle involved in the accident violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy issued in his favour as he allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person having no valid and effective driving license.

3. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed and for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, issue No. 4 is relevant which is as below:-

"D;k foi{kh chek dEiuh ds fyf[kr dFku dh izkjfEHkd@fo'ks"k dFku dh vkifRr;ka lkFkZd gSa] gka rks budk izHkko D;k gksxkA"

4. The parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective case. The learned Tribunal considered the Issue No. 4 in detail and ultimately came to a conclusion that the appellant-Insurance Company cannot disown his liability to make payment of the amount to be awarded as compensation only by the reason that at the time of the accident the driver was not having a valid and effective driving license. For coming to the aforesaid conclusion learned Tribunal took into consideration several decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as various High Courts.

5. Assailing the finding of the learned Tribunal, the counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company raised the following grounds:

(i) It is an admitted fact that at the time of the aforesaid accident the driver was not having a valid and effective driving license to drive any type of vehicle and this fact has also been found to be proved by the learned Tribunal itself. It has also come on record that a learning driving license was issued in favour of the driver for a period of six months, but that period expired well before the accident took place and thereafter neither a fresh learning license nor permanent license of any type was issued in his favour.

(ii) It was the duty of the insured owner of the vehicle involved in the accident to appear as a witness before the Tribunal and to show that he took every possible step that his vehicle is driven by a duly licenced person only, but at the time of the accident the driver was driving the vehicle without his knowledge and there was no breach of any term and condition of the insurance policy on his part. In absence of the same, adverse inference should have been drawn against the owner