The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company cannot disown its liability for compensation if the owner did not deliberately entrust the vehicle to a person without a valid driving licence.

EQBAL, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal at the instance of owner of the vehicle is directed against the judgment and award dated 16. 1. 2003 passed by Additional District Judge-cum-Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Sahebganj in Title Suit No. 1 of 1998 whereby he awarded Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation and directed the appellant owner of the vehicle to pay the said amount.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. On 5. 11. 1997 the elder son of the respondent-claimant, Shambhu Chaudhary, while pulling his rickshaw on the main road was dashed by the truck bearing registration No. BHJ 7022. It was alleged that the said truck was driven rashly and negligently and as such the accident took place resulting in the death of the deceased. The appellant appeared and filed written statement stating, inter alia, that the vehicle was insured by a valid policy of insurance. However, National Insurance Co. Ltd. denied the fact that the truck was being driven rashly and negligently. The opposite party insurance company contested the case stating, inter alia, that on the relevant date of accident the driver driving the truck was not having a valid driving licence and also that the vehicle was not insured with the insurance company.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal framed the following issues for consideration: (1) Is the case as framed maintainable? (2) Whether the deceased Shambhu chaudhary died due to his own negligence or due to rash driving of the driver of the vehicle No. BHJ 7022? (3) Whether the driver had a valid driving licence? (4) Was truck No. BHJ 7022 insured on the date of the accident? (5) Is the claimant entitled to get compensation? If so, by whom and to what extent?

( 4 ) WHILE deciding issue No. 3 whether the driver has a valid driving licence, the tribunal recorded a finding on the basis of Exh. A, the driving licence, that the driving licence was valid from 24. 12. 1999 to 23. 12. 2002. The Tribunal, therefore, held that the offending vehicle was insured at the time of alleged accident but the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence.

( 5 ) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel appearing for the insurance company. We have also perused the evidence and the exhibits to find out the correctness of the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal with regard to the driving licence.

( 6 ) THE owner of the vehicle examined himself as opposite party No. 1. He has deposed that on the date of occurrence the driver Md. Munir was having a valid driving licence and he is a very good driver. He also produced the certificate relating to the driving licence of the driver. The driving licence, tax token and road permit were marked as Exhs. A, B and C respectively. The insurance company also examined one witness, namely, Rajendra Thakur as pw 1 (NIC ). He has stated in his evidence that the driver was granted driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle. He was granted licence for driving the heavy motor vehicle w. e. f. 24. 12. 1999. In this regard he has proved the certificate issued by the district Transport Officer marked as Exh. A-1. From perusal of the driving licence it appears that the licence was issued in the year 1996 being BLC No. 2119/96. There is an endorsement in the licence whereby the driver was allowed to drive heavy motor vehicle w. e. f. 12. 1. 2000. Another certificate issued by the D. T. O. which is on the record shows that in 1996 the driver was allowed to drive light motor vehicle and heavy motor vehicle.

( 7 ) THE insurance company in the main written statement did not take a defence that the owner of the vehicle knowing fully well that the driver had no valid driving licence entrusted the vehicle to the driver to drive the vehicle on the road nor is the case of the insurance company that he had knowledge about the fact that the driver driving the vehicle had no valid driving licence. On the contrary, the admitted fact is tha