The insurance company is not liable to pay compensation if the driver of the offending vehicle does not have a valid license to drive the said vehicle and there is a breach of the contractual agreement.

V. S. Aggarwal, J.

1. The short question that comes up for consideration in the present appeal is as to if the respondent united India Insurance Co. Ltd. is responsible to pay compensation to the appellants.

2. The relevant facts giving rise to the present question and the appeal are that on 3.1.1994 Satbir Singh was going on his bicycle with drums containing milk for sale. He was going from city Rewari to sadbusa Nagar. At about 6.40 p. m. when he reached near the house of Hari Narain, one tractor bearing registration No. HNM 1876 was being driven by Beer Singh, appellant No.1, in a rash and negligent manner. It came from Rewari city side and hit Satbir Singh. Satbir Singh fell down and sustained injuries. The accident is alleged to have occurred because of rash and negligent driving of Beer Singh. Jai parkash, son of Daya Ram witnessed the occurrence. Satbir Singh was removed to the hospital at Rewari. He was referred to medical College, Rohtak. Satbir Singh remained admitted in the said hospital. He claimed a compensation of Rs.13,00,000 with respect to the permanent disability, expenses for medical treatment, pain and suffering.

3. The petition had been contested. The appellants in their reply denied that the alleged incident took place. In any case it was contended that in case of any accident the tractor was insured with the United india Insurance Co. Ltd. and, therefore, the insurance company was liable to pay the compensation.

4. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent No.2, in its separate reply also contested the claim. It denied factum of such an accident. However, it was pleaded that Beer Singh, driver of the tractor was not having a valid driving licence. He was driving the tractor without registration and in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Consequently, respondent No.2 denied its liability to pay the compensation.

5. The learned Tribunal vide the impugned award held that Satbir Singh suffered injuries because of rash and negligent driving of Beer Singh. The compensation was awarded amounting to Rs, 65,000. But respondent No.2, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , was exonerated holding that on the date of the accident Beer Singh was not holding any valid driving licence. He was driving the same without a licence and, therefore, the insurance company, respondent No.2, was not liable to pay the compensation.

6. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by Beer Singh, Murti devi and Kaila claiming that respondent no.2, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , should be held liable to pay the compensation.

7. At the motion hearing on behalf of the appellants, there was no controversy raised about the findings arrived at by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The only dispute raised was that respondent No.2 insurance company should be held liable to pay compensation jointly and severally along with the appellants. Learned counsel contended that though the licence had expired about 5 years ago before the accident took place, but in terms of sec. 149 (2) (a) (ii) it must have also established that Beer Singh was disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence. Therefore, as per the appellants counsel the liability could not be fastened on them only.

8. To appreciate the said controversy, reference with advantage can well be made to the relevant provisions of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988. It is pan materia with sub-section (2) of section 96 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Sub-section (2)of sec. 149, i. e. , its relevant portion reads: "149 (2 ). No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer