JUDGMENT

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. — Leave granted.

2. National Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter re¬ferred to as the ‘insurer’) calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of the Delhi High Court dismissing the appeal filed by it.

3. Questioning the award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (in short ‘MACT’), the appeal was filed before the High Court. By the aforesaid award the MACT had held that the respondent No. 1 Mrs. Kanti Devi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘claimant’) was entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,24,800/- together with 8% interest from the date of filing of claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the Act’) i.e. 30.11.1998 till realisation of the award excluding certain periods (i.e. from 30.11.1998 to 1.8.2000 and 10.9.2001 to 4.2.2002). The insurer was held liable to com¬pensate the claimant.

4. Background facts as projected by the claimant in the claim petition were that her son Pradeep Kumar lost his life on 4.10.1988 on account of vehicular accident involving Tata Tempo No. DL-1-B-8441 which was allegedly being driven rashly and negligently by Rahani Prasad respondent No. 2 (hereinafter re¬ferred to as the ‘driver’). The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident. The offending vehicle belonged to Devender Kumar, (respondent No. 3) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘insured’). Before the Tribunal the driver and the owner did not appear.

5. Stand of the insurer before the MACT was that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence, as the driving licence authorised driving of light motor vehicles (private), while driver was driving a transport vehicle (Tata Truck-407). the MACT held that there was nothing to show that the driving licence was fake and that plying of the vehicle involved amount¬ed to breach of conditions of the insurance policy issued by the insurer. It was held that the insurer was to satisfy the award, with right of recovery from the insured. This part of observation of the MACT which led to fastening of liability on the insurer was challenged before the High Court. By the impugned order the High Court dismissed the appeal holding that in view of the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and others (2003 (3) SCC 338) the insurance company cannot escape its liability to pay compensation to the claimant when it has been given right to recover the compensation from the in¬sured.

6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court’s view is untenable in view of what has been said by a three-Judge Bench decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others (2004 (3) SCC 297). There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in spite of service of notice.

7. In Swaran Singh’s case (supra) this Court dealt with scope and ambit of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) vis-a-vis proviso appended to Sub-section (4) and Sub-section (5) thereof. While dealing with cases where the driver who has been granted licence for one type of vehicle at the relevant time was driving another type of vehicle. In para 89 it was observed as follows :

“Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in Sub-section (2) of the said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are : (a) motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in Sub-section (2) of Section 10.