The insurance company is liable to pay the award amount even if the driver of the tourist car did not have a special endorsement to drive a tourist car, provided that the driver had a valid license to drive a light motor vehicle and was authorized to drive a transport vehicle, which included tourist cars.

The Judgment was delivered by :

National Insurance Company is the appellant in both the appeals. The Insurance Company is challenging its liability. Since the issue is one and the same in both the appeals, they are being disposed of by the following common order.

2. First I shall take up C.M.A. No. 903 of 1992, which is filed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional Sub-Judge), Tirunelveli in M.C.O.P. No. 65 of 1990 wherein respondents 1 to 3 herein have secured an award for Rs. 2,92,352/- in their favour. C.M.A. No. 402 of 1992 is against M.C.O.P. No. 145/90 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Dindigul wherein the first respondent herein secured an award of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.

4. The only point for consideration is whether the insurance company is liable to pay the award amount in the absence of special endorsement for driving tourist car in the driving licence of the driver concerned. It is the definite case of the learned counsel for the appellant that inasmuch as the vehicles in question are tourist taxi, in the absence of special endorsement as per Rule 169-A(7)(x) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 read with permit conditions attached to the vehicle and in view of the terms and conditions of the policy, they are not liable to pay any amount in the event of violation of the above mentioned statutory and policy conditions.

5. In order to appreciate, I shall refer the relevant provisions. Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 reads as follows :-

"Section 3. Necessity for driving licence,-

No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to himself authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a motor vehicle as a paid employee or shall so drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do."

Rule 169-A(7)(x) of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules reads as follows :-

"169-A. Guiding principles for the grant of tourist maxi cab and motor cab permits,-

(7) The Regional Transport Authority or its Secretary, if it decides to grant the permit for a tourist maxi cab or tourist motor cab shall attach to the permit the following conditions and also such other conditions as may be applicable to contract carriages as it deems fit-

(i) x x x

(x) that the vehicle shall be driven only by the driver who obtains authorisation to drive a transport vehicle from the licensing authority in the State."

Apart from this, it is also relevant to mention the permit conditions, more particularly, additional condition No. 9 as seen from Ex. R-3 is as follows :-

"Additional conditions for the tourist vehicles including tourist maxi cab permits.

1) x x x

9) The vehicle shall be driven only by those drivers who obtain special authorisation to drive tourist maxi cab and tourist motor cab from the licensing authority in the State."

6. By pointing out the above mentioned provisions as well as permit conditions and insurance policy, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the person who drove the vehicle in question must have a valid licence in terms of the above referred provisions. In M.C.O.P. No. 65/90, the licence of the driver of the tourist car T.M.R. 2229 has been marked as Ex. R-1. Ex. R-2 is the xerox copy of the permit. Ex. R-3 is the conditions for contract carriages. Ex. R-4 is the insurance policy for the period 21-7-1989 to 20-7-1990. Ex. R-5 is the claim form and Ex. R-6 is the R.C. Book relating to Ambassador car T.M.R. 2229. By placing the above documents, it is contended that in the absence of special endorsement to drive a tourist car, in the light of the terms and conditions of the policy, there is no obligation on the part of the insurance company to indemnify the loss caused to the owner of the vehicle.

7. Mr. K. Ranganathan very much relied on a Div