An insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to a claimant if the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident did not have a valid license to drive the vehicle.

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 person holding an effective learners licence may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfied the requirement of rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules 1989.”

A xerox copy of the second respondents driving licence is marked by consent as Ex. B-2. It was issued on 10-7-1986 by the Assistant Licencing Authority, Gobichettipalayam for the period 8-7-1986 to 7-7-1991. Obviously, the application for licence was made five days after the accident and obtained on 10-7-1986. The purpose of the same in self-evident. The claimant has produced a certified copy of the Inspection Report given by the Motor Vehicles Insepctor, Gobichettipalayam under Rule 418A of the Tamil Nadu Motor Vehicles Rules. The original report is found among the records received form the Judicial Megistrate Sathyamangalam, the criminal case C.C. No. 335 of 1986 against the driver along with Ex. X-1 (wound certificate). Col. 7 of the report shows that no driving licence was produced before the Insepctor. That report is dated 7-7-1986. The application for driving licence is made only on the next day (8-7-1986).

3. In spite of the above materials on record, the Tribunal brushed aside the contention of the Insurance Company by observing that the driver of the vehicle had a licence marked as Ex. B-2 and the vehicle is insured under the policy marked as Ex. B-1 and therefore the company is liable in view of nature of injuries suffered by the claimant. The owner of the vehicle and the insurer are made liable jointly and severally of a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the original petition. There can be no doubt that the Tribunal has not noticed that the driving licence is only for a subsequent period and there is no licence for any earlier period. The contention of the appellant that the driver of the vehicle had no licence at the time of accident is well founded.

4. Learned counsel for the claimant contends that the burden is heavily on the insurer to prove that the exclusion clause is applicable and in this case the insurer not having examined any witness has failed to discharge the same. It is also submitted by him that when the claimant gave evidence no question was put to him in the cross examination. There is no merit in this contention. The two documents produced by the insurer were marked by consent and there was no necessity to examine any witness as the records speak for themselves. How can the insurer examine any person who can assert from his personal knowledge that the driver of the vehicle had no driving licence at the relevant time? We should not forget that both the owner of the vehicle and the driver will in their own interest do their best to defeat the case of the insurer. The best evidence that can be added by the insurer is the relevant rec