IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the principle that the breach of policy conditions, such as the validity of the driver's licence, must be proven to have contributed to the cause of the accident for the insurer to avoid liability. It also clarifies the scope of enhancement of compensation in an appeal by the insurer.

JUDGMENT :

1. By the impugned judgment and award dated 25.2.2003 passed in MACT Claim Case No.29/1999, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Rajgarh in the District of Churu has awarded compensation of Rs.4,09,000/- to the dependents of deceased-Madan Lal, who are respondents no.1 to 7 herein.

2. The Insurer of the offending bus i.e. the National Insurance Company Limited has challenged the said award on the ground that since the driver of the bus had no driving licence on the date of accident, the Tribunal has wrongly held the appellant liable to pay compensation.

3. Another ground mentioned in the memo of appeal is that, in the FIR of the incident, a different registration number of the bus is mentioned, therefore, the claimants had failed to prove identity of the offending bus.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant has prayed for enhancement of compensation on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly calculated the payable compensation. Since the claimants have not filed any appeal for enhancement, a question arise whether in this appeal by the Insurer, prayer for enhancement can be considered.

5. Brief facts of this case is that on 29.11.1998 Madan Lal and some others were travelling in a Jeep bearing Regn. No.HR-D-8024. A bus bearing Regn. No.RJ-03P-394, which was being driven by respondent no.4 Pawan Kumar dashed against the Jeep causing severe accident and death of two persons as well as injuries to some others. An FIR was lodged against the bus bearing Regn. No.RJ-10P-0148, however, during investigation it surface that the Engine number and Chassis number of the bus was corresponding to the Regn. No.RJ-03P-394. It also surface that just by the side of this number, another broken number plate was hanging, which was bearing no.RJ-10P-0148 and that led to wrong mentioning of the registration number in the FIR.

6. The claimants’ witness no.1 Atma Ram is driver of the Jeep, which met with the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. Witness no.2 Jagdish Prasad was a passenger in the Jeep and both the witnesses were injured of the accident. They have categorically stated that bus bearing Regn. No.RJ-03P-394 had caused the accident. Insurer’s witness Moolchand Surana had admitted that at the time of accident, the bus was being driven by Pawan, however, Pawan had no driving licence.

7. It is evident from the documentary evidence on the record that after investigation of the case, the Police has submitted charge-sheet against Pawan- driver of offending vehicle bearing Regn. No.RJ-03P-394. The seizure memo (Exhibit-7) also depicts that the accident was caused by bus bearing Regn. No.RJ-03P-394, which was seized by the police during investigation of the case, therefore, finding of the Tribunal that bus bearing aforesaid number was involved in the accident is corroborated by the evidence available on record coupled with evidence of the respondent witness, hence the said finding stand affirmed.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driver had no driving licence on the date of accident.

It is not disputed that driver Pawan Kumar of the offending bus was holding a licence to drive heavy motor vehicle from 05.1.1989 to 04.1.1992. The said licence was renewed from 17.7.1992 to 16.7.1995 and again w.e.f. 24.8.1995 to 23.8.1998 and again on 01.12.1998 to 30.11.2001. It is worth to mention that the accident occurred on 29.11.1998, whereas the licence had already expired on 23.8.1998.

9. The respondent witness no.2 Bhanwar Lal has admitted that he did not bring the application, of the driver for renewal of the licence before the court. The witness further stated that on previous occasions, the application for renewal was accepted with late fees but the last renewal was without any late fees, therefore, it is evident that the application for last renewal was made within time otherwise late fine would have been charged. One more aspect is evident that that the accident took place on 29.11.1998, whereas the licence was renew