An Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of a vehicle for compensation awarded to the victims of an accident if the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

Surinder Sarup, J.—This judgment will dispose of FAO (MVA) No.21 of 1991 and Cross-objections No. 185 of 1991 as both of them are directed against the award dated 1.12.1990 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Mandi, H.P. (hereinafter to be called the Tribunal). The appeal is at the instance of United India Insurance Company which was arrayed as respondent No. 3 before the Tribunal while the Cross-objections have been filed on behalf of the claimants.

2. The facts out of which these proceedings arise are that Sant Ram deceased was driving a scooter on December 2, 1988 bearing registration No. HPM 853 at a place called Khalyar. One Dile Ram was sitting behind as pillion rider. While Sant Ram was thus driving the said scooter, it was struck from behind by another scooter alleged to have been driven in a rash and negligent manner by one Mittar Dev (respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal) which was bearing registration No. HID 1652. As a result of this accident, the said Sant Ram fell down and sustained injuries. He was immediately taken to the District Hospital, Mandi, where he was declared dead. Post- mortem of dead body was carried out on the same day i.e. December 2, 1988. It was in these circumstances that the widow and the three sons of the deceased Sant Ram filed the claim petition.

3. Respondents No.1 and 2 being the driver and owner of the scooter in question filed a joint written statement and pleaded that the accident was due to the fault of Sant Ram deceased. As per their version, he was going on the scooter in question to Khalyar and was being followed by Mittar Dev respondent No.1 before the Tribunal. Near the workshop at Khalyar, Sant Ram at once turned his scooter towards the right side of the road without giving any prior signal, as such, both the scooters collided, although the scooter being driven by respondent No.1 Mittar Dev was at a low speed and was being driven in a cautious manner. Due to sudden turn towards the right side of the road of the scooter being driven by Sant Ram Mittar Dev respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal could not apply the brakes in time. On this version of the accident, respondent No. 1 before the Tribunal sought to absolve himself from any liability. It was also pleaded in the written statement that at the relevant time, Sant Ram deceased was not wearing the helmet.

4. The Insurance Company being respondent No.3 before the Tribunal in its separate written statement took up the plea that it is not liable to indemnify the claim for compensation because at the time when the accident took place, respondent No.1 was not having in his possession a regular driving licence. Respondent No.2 being the owner of the scooter in question wrongly allowed it to be driven by respondent No.1 without a valid driving licence which was in contravention of the insurance policy. The plea of non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Insurance Company with which the scooter driven by Sant Ram had been insured was also taken in the written statement of respondent No. 3.

5. On the above pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:— (1) Whether Sh. Sant Ram died in an accident which took place on 2.12.88 at Jawaharnagar, Mandi at 2.30 p.m. on account of the rash and negligent driving of scooter bearing registration No. HID 1652 by respondent-2 Khem Chand. If so its effect?... OPP (2) If issue No. (1) is proved whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation of Rs. six lacs ?......OPP (3) Whether the respondent-3 is not liable to pay the compensation because the Insurance Company with which the scooter being driven by Sh. Sant Ram has not been impleaded? (4) Relief.

6. Issue No. (1) was decided in favour of the claimants holding thereby that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the scooter bearing registration No. HID 1652 by respondent No. 1. Under issue No. (2), the Tribunal has held the claimants to be entitled to an amount of Rs. 2,88,000/- to whic