The absence or invalidity of the driver's license is not a defense available to the insurer. The insurer must prove that the insured was negligent and failed to fulfill the policy condition regarding the use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Rath, J.

The insurer assails the award dated 27.1.2018 passed by learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.(I), Balangir in M.A.C. No.142 of 2011.

2. One Jadu Jagadala died in a motor vehicle accident. Claimants-respondent nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Sec.166 of M.V. Act, 1988 before learned M.A.C.T. (I), Balangir stating inter alia that on 2.7.2011 at about 1.30 P.M. while Jadu Jagadala was travelling along with others in a bus bearing registration No.OR-17-F-2075 near village Uchbahali chhak on Manamunda-Sagada road, due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the bus met with an accident as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. He was working as a helper. He was aged about 21 years. He was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. He was the sole bread earner of the family. Due to his untimely death, the family received a serious setback.

3. The opposite party no.1, owner of the offending vehicle, was set exparte. Opposite party no.2, the insurer filed written statement denying the liability. It was pleaded that the accident took place due to the fault of the deceased. The deceased was unemployed. The amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is high and excessive. The opposite party no.1 was plying the vehicle without valid permit. The driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license. Thus, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation.

4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal struck six issues. To substantiate the case, the claimants had examined two witnesses and on their behalf nine documents had been exhibited. No evidence was adduced by the opposite party no.2. Learned Tribunal came to hold that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants are entitled to compensation. It awarded Rs.6,34,800/- towards compensation and directed the insurer, opposite party no.2, to pay the same along with interest @6% per annum from 12.9.2011, i.e. the date of filing of the claim application.

5. Heard Mr. M. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and Mr. J. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2-claimants.

6. The main grounds of challenge are two folds. The driver of the offending vehicle has no driving license at the time of accident and the offending vehicle, OR-17-F-2075, had no valid permit.

7. The core question that arises for consideration before this Court as to whether the insurer is exonerated from its liability, if a driver of the offending vehicle had no driving licence at the time of accident?

8. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) AIR SC 1531, the apex Court made an in-depth analysis and summarized the principles and held:

"105. (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act.

(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of