By the Court.—The appeal filed at the instance of the Insurer/Insurance Company seeks setting aside award dated 5.3.2014, rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 4, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 70 of 2007 Smt. Santosh Kumari and others v. Managing Director, UPSRTC and others.

2. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal:

“Whether the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the insured/awarded amount, in case the accident occurs within thirty days of the expiry of the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle ?”

3. Facts of the case in brief are that Barati Lal (deceased) was going on his motorcycle, Registration No. UP32/BK 7301 at 6.30p.m. on 31.12.2006 via Mawaiya over-bridge from the side of Eveready Tri-Junction. Offending bus bearing Registration No. UP32/BN1735 being driven negligently came and hit the motorcycle of Barati Lal. Barati Lal fell off his motorcycle and sustained injuries of serious nature on his head. Barati Lal was moved to Trauma Centre, Medical College, Lucknow where he died at 11.00p.m. on 31.12.2006 itself.

Brother of Barati Lal, namely Phool Chandra got First Information Report registered in police station Bazarkhala, district Lucknow with the allegation that the bus driver was driving the bus in a negligent and rash manner at fast speed which caused the accident.

At the time of death, age of Barati Lal was 40 years. Barati Lal was serving as Phone Mechanic in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, U.P. on a salary of Rs. 11,373/-. Claim petition was filed by the respondents/claimants to claim Rs. 31,14,044/-.

4. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 12,41,780/- vide impugned award dated 5.3.2014 while holding that the driver of the bus was negligent in driving the bus; and the insurance company is liable to compensate the claimants.

5. The Insurance Company has come up in appeal, only in challenge to findings recorded on Issue No. 3. The findings on other issues have not been challenged, nor the Court has been addressed.

Issue No. 3 is to the effect : whether on the date of accident, the driver of the bus No. UP32/BN 1735 held a valid and effective driving licence ?

6. The sequence of events giving rise to challenge to the findings recorded on issue No. 3 is that, as noted above, the accident occurred on 31.12.2006. The offending bus was being driven by driver Sunil Kumar. It is an undisputed fact that Sunil Kumar had a driving licence which was renewed from 6.1.1994 till 5.1.1997, 27.9.1997 till 26.9.2000, 26.9.2000 till 25.9.2003, 26.12.2003 till 25.12.2006, 2.4.2007 till 1.4.2010 etc. The subsequent period of validity of the licence would not be relevant because the accident occurred on 31.12.2006.

From the facts given above, it is evident that driving licence of Sunil Kumar, Driver expired on 25.12.2006. The accident occurred six days thereafter on 31.12.2006. The driving licence was renewed on 2.4.2007, i.e. after a little more than three months.

7. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the technicality should not come in the way of the insurer to avoid its liability. Even after the accident, the driving licence of the driver had been renewed. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence.

The Tribunal has relied on judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004)3 SCC 297, New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla, (2011)4 SCC 342 and Prem Kumari v. Prahlad Dev, AIR 2008 SC 1073.

The tribunal has quoted the following while giving a verdict on issue No. 3 against the appellant :

“The insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning D.L. Minor breaches of licence conditions such as want Medical Fitness Certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treat