JUDGEMENT

1. With respect to a motor vehicular accident which had taken place on 30.06.1998 resulting in death of one Sunil Kumar, an eight years aged boy, his parents along with his brothers had come forward with a claim petition seeking compensation for the death of said Sunil Kumar the victim of accident caused by the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing registration no. JKR-6152. The offending vehicle was owned by M/s K.C. Vanaspati-respondent no. 1 herein and was driven by Prem Singh-respondent no. 2-herein. The offending vehicle was insured with the appellant herein.

2. The claim petition so filed by the claimants/proforma respondents herein came to be allowed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (in short, 'Tribunal') in terms of an award dated 03.10.2003.

3. Vide said award dated 03.10.2003, whereby compensation of an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the proforma respondents, the liability for payment of compensation was fastened upon the appellant, on account of it being the insurer of the offending vehicle, by holding that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 2-Prem Singh while driving the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing registration no. JKR-6152 owned by the respondent no. 1-M/s K.C. Vanaspati.

4. Against the said award dated 03.10.2003, the appellant herein came to prefer an appeal under section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 (in short, 'Act of 1988') which came to be on file no. 45/2004.

5. The claimants/proforma respondents herein had also felt aggrieved of duration of interest period with respect to amount of compensation awarded and came forward with an appeal-CIMA No. 13/2004.

6. Both the said appeals came to be disposed of by this Court in terms of a common judgment dated 26.04.2006 whereby the appeal-CIMA No. 13/2004 preferred by the claimants/proforma respondents came to be dismissed but the appeal-CIMA No. 45/2004 filed by the appellant herein resulted in remand with respect to re-hearing on issue no. 3 which was as to 'whether the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and, therefore, insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured.'

7. It is, thus, obvious that the appellant herein had felt aggrieved of the award dated 03.10.2003 of the Tribunal insofar as it had held the appellant, as being the insurer of the offending vehicle, to satisfy the payment of compensation as awarded under the award and had absolved the owner as well as the driver of the offending vehicle from bearing the said burden on account of the insurance cover and non-violation of any terms and conditions of the policy.

8. The appellant had reckoned that the respondent no. 2-Prem Singh, the driver of the offending vehicle, was not having a valid and effective driving licence and as such, the same was reckoned to be a major breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy which ought to have relieved the insurer i.e., the appellant from bearing the burden of paying the compensation without having right to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

9. The appellant, in its appeal-CIMA No. 45/2004, had agitated the issue that despite having deposited the diet expenses for summoning of an official witness from the office of Registering and Licensing Authority, Una (H.P.) along wi