The main legal point established is that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation when the driver did not have a valid license at the time of the accident, as per Section 149 of the MV Act.

JUDGMENT

1. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matters are being heard and disposed of finally.

2. The present appeals are preferred against the judgment and award dated 3.4.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara, whereby the learned Tribunal found the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident as liable to pay the compensation, however, the Insurance Company was given liberty to first compensate the claimants and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the claim petitions were preferred on account of accident which occurred on 9.3.1995. The present two appeals i.e. CMA No.380/2002 & 379/2002 have been preferred by the owner of the vehicle whereas the appeal No.494/1995 has been preferred by one Sanjeev Kumar who sustained injuries in the accident occurred on 9.3.1995.Mr. Mridul Jain, learned counsel for the appellant-owner has vehemently submitted that the driver of the vehicle Ajay Singh was holding a valid licence issued by the competent authorities of the transport department but the validity of the same got lapsed before the date of accident. Learned counsel further submits that driver of the vehicle was fully eligible to drive the vehicle, however, not getting the licence renewed in time is only a technical ground and therefore, the liability cannot be fastened on the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the Insurance Company and the claimants submitted that admittedly, the driving licence of the driver Ajay Singh was in a lapse condition as the same was not renewed before the date of accident and therefore, the Insurance Company will not be liable to compensate the claimants. In support of his contention, he relies upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwar Chandra and Others Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others reported in (2007) 10 SCC 650 and Ram Babu Tiwari Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2008) SCC 165. He therefore, submits that the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any illegality and same calls for no interference by this Court.

5. Mr. Manish Shishodia, learned counsel appearing for the claimant submits that this Court may take suo moto cognizance of the fact that the compensation awarded to the claimant in the present case is on the lower side, although no appeal has been preferred.

6. Learned counsel for the claimant Sanjeev Kumar has submitted that the claimant has suffered a permanent disability to the extent of 25% on account of fracture in the right leg. He further submits that on account of the injury sustained, the leg of the injured has also got shortened causing great difficulty in meeting day to day affairs. He further submits that the Tribunal has assessed the compensation on a lower side and therefore the same is required to be enhanced suitably.

7. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award dated 3.4.2002 as well as the record of the case.

8. The admitted facts of the case are that on the date of accident i.e. 9.3.1995, the driver Ajay Singh who was driving the Mini Bus was not having the licence in currency. Although he was having the licence but the same got expired before the date of accident, therefore in the light of the judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Ishwar Chandra (supra) and Ram Babu Tiwari (supra), the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as the provisions of Section 149 of the MV Act are not complied with. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments held that in such circumstances, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the damages and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Thus, the finding recorded by the Tribunal does not suffer from any infirmity and the same is required to be upheld.

9. Accordingly, the appeals of the appellant Dara Singh are bereft of merit and same are here