In the absence of evidence proving that the owner knew the driver did not have a valid driving license, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability.

1. Heard the counsel for the parties in the limitation matter. The delay is of 18 days which has been sufficiently explained.

2. Hence, IA is allowed and the delay in filing the appeals is condoned. We have heard the counsel for the parties on the merit of the appeal aso. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 15.6.2005 passed by Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 139/97 whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation for the death of one Mithu Sao who died in an accident caused by Bus No. BR-13P-1510 on 2.6.1997. The claimants-respondents are the widow, minor sons and daughters. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned order on the ground that when a person driving the bus was not having valid driving licence, the appellant-Insurance Company has no liability.

3. The Tribunal although took notice of the fact that the owner failed to prove the driving licence, it held that no evidence was led by the Insurance Company that the owner of the vehicle had knowledge about the fact that the driver had defective driving licence. The Tribunal further held that in such circumstance the Insurance Company cannot disown its liability.

4. It appears that against the said impugned judgment and award the claimants-respondents also preferred Misc. appeal being M.A. No. 137/2005 which was allowed in terms of judgment and order dated 8.5.2007 and the compensation amount was enhanced from Rs. 1,47,000/- to Rs. 1,75,000/-. It is worth to mention here that the said appeal was decided after hearing the counsel for the claimants and also the Insurance Company.

5. Now the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether in absence of any evidence to the effect that the owner knowing fully well that the driver was not having a valid driving licence or the driver was holding a defective driving licence, the Insurance Company can be exonerated from its liability? In the case of Kashi Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (1999) 4 SCC 128 the Supreme Court held that when the insured had handed over the vehicle for being driven by an unlicensed driver, the Insurance Company can be exonerated from its liability to meet the claim of the third party. However, that decision was subsequently distinguished by the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Soren Singh AIR2004SC1531 wherein it was held that mere absence, fake and invalid driving licence itself are defence available to the insurer. In order to avoid his liability, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of policy.

6. In the light of the aforesaid ratio decided by the Supreme Court we are of the view that in absence of any evidence to the effect that the insured was in know of the fact that the driver had no valid driving licences and even then handed over the vehicle for being driven, the finding of the Tribunal needs no interference by this Court. For the aforesaid reason, we do not find any merit in this appeal which is, accordingly, dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.