The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation if the driver did not have a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident.

1. Mst. Raja Begum-respondent no.1 herein, was on 29th March 2007 at 10.30 AM, hit by speedily driven vehicle bearing Registration No.JK04/8157 at Herber Mod, Khag. She suffered injuries in the accident, was treated at Bone & Joint Hospital, Barzalla, Srinagar, and left disabled for rest of her. She laid a claim petition under Section 166, Motor Vehicles Act, before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal"), claiming Rs. 43,90,000/- as compensation on account of permanent disablement suffered by her in the accident, as also on account of medical expenses, transportation, shock, special diet, attendant, and other pecuniary and lion-pecuniary loss. Her case was that due to accident her pelvic bone was dislocated and her uterus damaged, making it impossible for her to conceive and give birth to a child.

2. The claim petition was resisted by appellant insurance company on the ground that vehicle No.8157/JK04 having insurance cover under Policy No.421003/31/06/6300, was not involved in the accident. It was further pleaded that as driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective Driving License at the time of accident, the appellant is absolved of its liability to indemnify owner of offending vehicle.

3. The owner of offending vehicle denied involvement of his vehicle in the accident. He further insisted that driver was employed by him after satisfying himself that he was holding valid and effective Driving License and authorized to drive the insured vehicle. The owner of vehicle maintained that compensation, if any, was to be paid by insurance company and not owner as vehicle had insurance cover from appellant insurance company.

4. The Tribunal after going through pleadings, settled following issues:

1. Whether on 29.03.2007, Fayaz Ahmad Dar respondent no.1 was plying offending vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing Registration no.JK04- 8157 rashly and negligently as a result of which at Haber Mod Khag, it hit petitioner who was walking on her correct side of road, as a result of which she sustained multiple grievous injuries rendering him permanently disabled? OPP

2. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and the vehicle was without valid R/P and other vehicular documents, as such the insured owner had committed wilful breach of policy conditions and therefore no liability can be saddled on the Insurance Company? OPR4

3. In case issue no. 1 is proved ibn affirmative to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to, from whom and in what proportion? OPP

5. The parties were afforded an opportunity to adduce evidence to discharge the onus to prove issues burden whereof was placed on them respectively. Respondent no.1 claimant appeared in the witness box and examined S/Shri Abdul Gaffar Hajam, Ghulam Hassan and Dr. Manzoor Ahmad Halwai to substantiate her case. Appellant insurance company on the other hand examined Shri Harish Raina, Administrative Officer, and Mohammad Sultan Shangoo, Junior Assistant, in the office of RTO Kashmir, in support of their case.

6. Tribunal, on going through pleadings and evidence brought on record, decided all the issues in favour of respondent no.1 claimant and against appellant. The Tribunal, while holding that driver of offending vehicle was not having valid and effective Driving License on the date of accident, did not give any benefit to appellant insurance company as Tribunal found driver to have had valid and effective Driving Licence from 10.11.2002 to 9.11.2005 and thereafter from 23.04.2007 to 19.11.2008. Tribunal relying on law laid down in New Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahadev Rawat [2011 ACJ 2337], held that once driver of offending vehicle is found to have basic driving licence, failure on his part to renew driving licence would not free insurance company of its duty to indemnify owner of vehicle, as driver is to be taken to have an ability to drive vehicle even i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document