SRINIVASAN, J.

1. When the petition for stay came up for orders, counsel on both sides agreed to argue the main appeal itself as the only question raised is whether the Insurance Company, the appellant herein is not liable to pay compensation to the claimant in view of the fact that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident had no licence to drive the same. The first respondent herein is the claimant. The second respondent is the driver and the third respondent is the owner of the vehicle which is a scooter.

2. The claimant as injured on 3-7-1986 when the Scooter driven by the second respondent dashed against him. He claimed a compensation of Rupees one lakh. The appellant who was the third respondent before the Tribunal pleaded inter alia that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid licence to drive the vehicle. The policy of insurance was marked by consent as Ex. D-1, The relevant clause reads:—

“Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive any person including insured PROVIDED that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such licence provided also that the perso