1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1), Sirmour District at Nahan (hereafter referred to as the Tribunal), in MAC Petition No. 07-N/2 of 1997, decided on 27-4-1998. The Cross-Objections filed by the claimant are also being disposed of along with this appeal.

2. The facts necessary for the decision of the case are that an ambulance bearing Registration No. HP-17-0871 was owned by respondent No.3, M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories. On 25-9-1996, the said van was being driven by Kishan Chand, respondent No. 2. There was an accident between this ambulance and one scooter, as a result of which claimant Amar Chand suffered injuries and both bones of his left leg were fractured. The claimant filed a claim petition, which was contested by the owner, driver and Insurance Company. One of the defences raised by the Insurance Company was that the driver Kishan Chand did not have a valid driving license at the time of the accident and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable.

3. The only question which requires decision in this case is whether the driver held a valid driving license at the time of the accident and whether the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award?

4. The facts relevant for decision of this point are that, as observed above, the accident occurred on 25-9-1996. From the facts, which are not in dispute, it is clear that Kishan Chand was issued a driving license No. 7326-N/1992 to drive a light motor vehicle on 10-2-1992. This license was valid up to 10-2-1995 Kishan Chand did not get his driving license renewed. His driving license was renewed only on 8-1-1997 much after the accident took place.

5. It is contended by Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, that on the date of the accident, i.e. 25-9-1996, Kishan Chand did not hold any driving license. Therefore, he neither held an effective driving license nor was he duly licensed and, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable. On the other hand, Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner-respondent No. 3, submits that to avoid its liability the Insurance Company must not only prove that the driver did not hold valid driving license but must also prove that he was disqualified from holding such driving license.

6. Before considering the facts of the case, it would be pertinent to refer to the provisions of the Insurance Policy Ex. R-1 and the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant portion of the Policy relating to the person(s) permitted to drive the insured vehicle, reads as follows : "Any person including insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence."

7. Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that the Insurance Company is entitled to defend the action on the grounds specified therein. The relevant portion of the Act permits the Company to defend the cause on proof of the following grounds : (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely : xxxxxxxxx (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 licence during the period of disqualification; or

8. Section 2(10) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines driving license as follows: "2(10) "driving licence" means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description."

9. According to Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no person is entitled to drive a motor vehicle unless he holds an effective driving license authorising him to drive such a cla