M.S.Liberhan, J.

1. It is expedient to collate the facts and circumstances under which this case has come before us. The main narration of events and circumstances are taken from FAO 725 of 1995 which was referred to the Full Bench and was argued as such.

2. Kinara Tubes Private Ltd. was the registered owner of truck No. HYW-6262 which was insured with the appellant. Rajbir Singh was employed as a driver with Kinara Tubes Pvt. Ltd. Krishan deceased was killed on 24.5.1993 while crossing the road in an accident with the above referred truck being driven rashly and negligently by Rajbir Singh driver.

3. Smt. Santro Devi widow of Krishan Kumar deceased and his three minor children claimed compensation of Rs.5 lacs for the death caused by rash and negligent driving from the insurance company, the owner and the driver on account of their statutory as well as tortious liability. A compensation of Rs.2,59,200/- with 12% P.A. interest was awarded to the claimants against the owner, driver and the appellant insurance company jointly and severally. The owner was held liable for tortious act of his driver a employee vicariously.

4. The driver and owner of the truck jointly defended the claim, by putting a common defence, inter-alia, denying the occurrence, taking the plea of alibi and putting the case to be of their false implication.

5. The appellant insurance company demurred, inter-alia, on the pleas of defective verification, bar of limitation, vagueness of the petition, non-disclosure of cause of action, contravention of the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and filing of the petition to defraud the appellant. The validity of the driving licence of the respondent-driver was denied. In addition to the above pleas, the pleas taken by the owner and driver were also put up,

6. The Tribunal found, the deceased was killed on account of rash and negligent driving of the above referred truck by Rajbir Singh driver, owned by Kinara Tubes Pvt. Ltd. and insured with the appellant. The plea of false implication and alibi were rejected. It was observed while holding the appellant liable that the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not issued by the Appropriate Authority at Gwalior. Resultantly, it was a fake licence issued on 9.11.1987, though it was twice renewed by a duly authorised licencing Authority at Toharfa firstly upto 8.11.1989 and then upto 9.11.1990. The Tribunal relied on the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sucha Singh and Ors., (1994-1)106 P.L.R. 140 to the effect that valid renewal of a fake licence would render it to be a valid driving licence. Thus, there being no violation of the contract of insurance between the insurer and the insured and as a necessary corollary, the appellant insurance company was found liable for the indemnity.

7. Prestine questions of law of wider litigative fall out, built on the edifice of the object of Motor Vehicles Act and its provisions, broadly pointed out and argued before the Full Bench, on which I propose to dispose of this appeal, and which keeping in view, the facts at variance in innumerable cases referred, can be figuratively put thus:-

I have after weighing the legal question of public importance and the interest involved, effecting the society at large and the desirability of deciding the questions, when on merit the decision on questions could be avoided, decided to dispose of the questions raised and argued with details.

8. In order to resolve each legal controversy rather to answer the questions raised, the Courts are guided by the objects imbibed in the directive principles of the Constitution i.e. justice, social and economical, and in order to meet social requirement or social interest the veiling of hollowed terminology, with progressive awareness, in order to bring out satisfactory results, which is the polestar of the Constitution rather of every law, justice without being practical, respo