The insurance company cannot be held responsible or liable to pay the amount when the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid license at the time of the accident.

1. The Insurance Company has come forward with the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the grant of award of Rs.1,82,000/-passed by the learned Additional District Judge, FTC-II, Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Chennai, in M.C.O.P.No. 2707 of 2004, dated 15.04.2008, questioning the award on the ground that the driver of the vehicle do not have a valid licence on the date of accident.

2. In this case, though, the Insurance Company admitted the accident as well as the Insurance, but, only questioning the liability the appeal has been filed.

3. According to Mr. S. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company the driver had the licence, which has expired and he has renewed it only subsequently. Therefore, when on the date of accident he did not have a licence they are not liable to pay any compensation. Further, they would also contend that the percentage of disability as given by the Doctor is very high and the award given by the court below is on the higher side, hence the appeal.

4. The owner of the vehicle is represented by an Advocate. He would mainly contend that it is not a case of no licence at all but it is a case where there was a licence but it got expired on 05.08.2001. Even then, the insurance company would be liable to pay. The claimant though was served did not appear and their names are printed.

5. Heard both sides. By consent, the main Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself is taken up for final disposal.

6. In this case, the accident is admitted and the insurance company has come forward with this appeal against liability and compensation. The main and only point raised by learned counsel for the appellant insurance company is that the vehicle was driven by a driver who did not have a valid licence. In this case, they have examined RW-2, the Regional Transport Officer to prove that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid licence. According to evidence, the driving licence expired even as early as 05.08.2001, whereas the accident took place on 06.03.2003 and he has renewed it, after the accident i.e. only on 28.05.2003. Admittedly, on the date of accident there is no licence at all. As far as the owner is concerned, knowing fully well permitted the driver who does not hold valid licence, had violated valid terms of the contract. When there is a violation, the insurance company cannot be held responsible or liable to pay the amount. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant brought to the notice of this court the rulings in Jawahar Singh v. Bala Jain & Ors. reported in 2011 (5) LW 416, wherein the Supreme Court in an identical case, wherein it is found to be driven by a minor, the Supreme Court by following the earlier Supreme Court decisions had stated that it is the duty of the insurance company to pay and recover.

“10. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, we are inclined to agree with the respondents that this is not a case for interference in view of the fact that admittedly the motorcycle belonging to the petitioner was being driven by Jatin, who had no licence to drive the same and was, in fact, a minor on the date of the accident. While issuing notice on 2nd April, 2009, we had limited the same to the question regarding liability to pay compensation on account of contributory negligence by the deceased who was riding a scooter, in causing the accident to happen.

11. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that it was Jatin, who came from behind on the motorcycle and hit the scooter of the deceased from behind. The responsibility in causing the accident was, therefore, found to be solely that of Jatin. However, sine Jatin was a minor and it was the responsibility of the petitioner to ensure that his motorcycle was not misused and that too by a minor who had no licence to drive the same, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal quite rightly saddled the liability for payment of compensation on the petitioner, and accordingly, directed the Insurance