An insurance company cannot avoid its liability under an insurance policy based solely on the driver's lack of a valid license unless the insured willfully violates the exclusion clause of the policy.

LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.—The aforesaid 9 appeals have been filed at the instance of National Insurance Company against separate awards made on 21-2-1995 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Kangra at Dharamshala whereby 9 claim petitions arising out of a single accident were decided. Since common question of law and facts is involved in these appeals, hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The necessary facts giving rise to these appeals are stated as below : — On 18-7-1993, bus bearing No. HPK-5277 belonging to Hamirpur Transport Cooperative Society and being driven by driver Bihari Lal was coming from Pathankot side. At 8.15 A.M. the bus in question fell into a Khud (Gorge) at Chambi bridge when it was crossing the bridge. As a result of the accident as many as 8 persons, including driver Bihari Lal had died at the spot and number of other persons sustained injuries. Nine claim petitions were filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by the claimants claiming compensation. According to the claimants, the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus in question. The claims for compensation were resisted by the owner of the bus and the Insurance Company. The owner of the bus in question has not denied the accident nor the death of the persons. However, it was contended that the driver of the ill-fated bus was not rash and negligent while driving the bus. It was stated that in order to save persons travelling in a Maruti Van which was coming from the opposite direction at reckless speed the driver of the bus tried to save those persons and turned the bus towards the side of the bridge where the PWD authorities had carried out the work of the repair recently. The side of the bridge gave way and the bus fell into the Khud. It was further averred that no warning sign had been put by the PWD authorities for the work of repairs having been carried out.

3. The Appellant Company, the Insurer of the ill-fated bus resisted the claim petitions contending that the accident was not as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver but it was a vis major1. It was further stated that the bus was being driven by Bihari Lal, driver who was not holding a valid driving licence and, therefore, the appellant-Company could not be held liable to pay compensation because under the terms of the Policy a person holding valid licence could have driven the bus in question. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal settled number of issues.

4. The Tribunal on consideration of materials on record came to the conclusion that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver who had valid licence. On that finding the Tribunal held the appellant-Company jointly and severally liable along with the owner of the bus to pay the amount of compensation along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the heirs and legal representatives of the victim and also to the injured person in each claim petition. It was further ordered that if the amount was not paid/deposited along with interest within 30 days from the date of the award i.e., 21-2-1995, claimants shall be entitled to interest on the amount awarded at the enhanced rate of 15% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment/deposit of the amount besides assessing of Counsels fee. The present appeals have been filed by the insurance Company for setting aside of the awards of the Tribunal.

5. Mr. M.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Company has urged two points before us to question the correctness and validity of the awards of the Tribunal. He has contended that the registered owner of the ill-fated vehicle namely Kalyan Singh was not a party before the Tribunal below and it was the duty of the Tribunal to implead him as party and therefore, in the absence of the registered owner of the vehicle no liability could be fastened upon the appellant-Company.