The main legal point established in the judgment is that the burden of proving the driver's lack of a valid license rests on the Insurance Company, and the insurer is liable to pay compensation to the claimants even if the driver did not possess a valid license.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Parichha, J. - This letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge in Miscellaneous Appeal Nos. 29 of 1995 and 121 of 1995 enhancing the compensation of Rs. 51,000 awarded by learned Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (in short, "M.A.C.T.")--Cuttack in Misc. Case No. 134 of 1987 to Rs. 90,000.

2. The relevant facts involved in the case are follows:

The truck bearing Registration No. ORC 4451 belonging to respondent No. 2 Phani Bhusan Kanungo met with an accident on 20th February, 1987 near village-Bhagipur due to rash and negligent driving by the driver resulting in the death of one Hrudananda Samantaray, who was the husband of appellant No. 1 and father of appellant No. 2. The appellants filed Claim Case No. 134 of 1987 making a claim of Rs. 1,40,000 as compensation. Learned M.A.C.T. after conducting inquiry awarded a compensation of Rs. 51,000. Not being satisfied by the said award the appellants filed Misc. Appeal No. 29 of 1995 for enhancement of the award. The Insurance Company-respondent No. 1 also filed Misc. Appeal No. 121 of 1995 challenging the award passed by the M.A.C.T. denying its liability on the ground that the offending vehicle was not being driven by a person having valid driving licence. Learned Single Judge who heard both the Misc. Appeal analogously, allowed the Misc. Appeal No. 121 of 1995 with observation that the Insurance Company is not held liable to pay compensation to the claimants as directed by the Tribunal. Learned Single Judge, however, allowed the Misc. Appeal No. 29 of 1995 in part and modified the award to the extent that the claimant-appellants will be entitled to compensation of Rs. 90,000 with interest thereon at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of claim till payment and that the owner of the offending vehicle (present respondent No. 2) is liable to pay the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants. Aggrieved by the said order appellants have preferred the present A.H.O. for striking down the observation of the learned Single Judge that the Insurance Company-respondent No. 1 is not liable to pay the compensation to the appellants.

3. Mr. P.B. Ray, learned Counsel appearing for appellants submitted that learned Single Judge took a legally incorrect view that the burden is on the claimants to prove that the driver had a valid licence. According to him, when the Insurance Company took the plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle without any valid licence the burden was on the Insurance Company to prove that aspect. Mr. Ray also submitted that even if the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid licence at the relevant time still then the Insurance Company has to pay the compensation to the claimants and subsequently recover amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. In support of such contention learned Counsel placed reliance on the cases of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Lehru and Others and National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, .

4. Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for Insurance Company respondent No. 1 on the other hand submitted that insurance policy is a contract between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company and the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants only if the conditions laid down in the insurance policy are rigidly fulfilled. He submitted that one of the conditions of the policy is that the vehicle must be driven by a driver holding a valid licence and if the offending vehicle was driven at the time of the accident by a driver not having a valid licence then the 1iabi1ity of the Insurance Company wi11 cease and the Company will not be liable to pay any compensation to the victims or the claimants. Mr. S.M. Dial, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 argued that the burden of proving that the driver had no valid licence at the time of the accident squarely lies on the Insurance Company and