1. - The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3.3.2011 passed by the learned Judge, MACT, Banswara to the extent vide which the insurance company is made liable. While praying for-setting aside the impugned award to the extent of the liability of the insurance company, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle Shiv Singh was having licence only up to 14.2.2000. After the date of the accident, the driver has got renewed his licence on 9.9.2005 to 8.9.2008. Thus, the driver did not have licence on the date of the accident. As such, the appellant insurance company deserves to be exonerated.

2. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the factual position but submitted that Section 149 imposes duty on the insurer. Sub-section (2) of Section 149 gives the right to the insurance company in case there is breach of the condition of policy. The sub-clause (ii) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 which reads (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving license during the period of disqualification;", shows that the absence of the driving licence itself is not sufficient. The driver should be found to be disqualified to drive. Since, in the present case, the driver was not disqualified, the insurance company cannot escape from its liability.Heard.

3. It is an admitted position that on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not have the licence. His licence stood cancelled way back on 14.2.2000. The accident took place on 17.8.2005. The driver got his license renewed much after the date of the accident i.e. with effect from 9.9.2005 to 8.9.2008.

4. The issue is squarely covered by the judgment rendered in Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in MACD 2008 (SC) 351. The Apex Court in the case of Ram Babu Tiwari (supra) relied on the judgment rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531 , while dealing with the question as to what would constitute a breach of condition of the contract of the insurance. The judgment rendered in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) laid down guidelines and general principle qua the effect of not having valid license in various situations.

5. However, the question as to what would be the effect of not having license for a long period or the effect of not having it renewed for a long period as in the present case was dealt in detail. In the said judgment Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act provided for renewal of the driving license. Sub-section (4) of Section 15 of the Act provides that wherein the application for renewal of a driving license is made after more than 30 days it expiry the same would be renewed automatically but in case it is moved after a long time, the renewal may not always be from the date of its expiry, and the driver may be required to give fresh test. Para 18 of the judgment rendered in the case of Ram Babu Tiwari (supra) clarifies the same as under:

"18. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that only in the event an application for renewal of license is filed within a period 30 days from the date of expiry thereof, the same would be renewed automatically which means that even if an accident had taken place within the aforementioned period, the driver may be held to be possessing a valid license. The proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 15, however, clearly states that the driving license shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal in the event the application for renewal of a license is made more than 30 days after the date of its expiry. It is, therefore, evident that as on renewal of the license on such terms, the -driver of the vehicle cannot be said to be holding a valid license, the insurer would not be l