1. Heard Sri Suyash Agarwal, Advocate, for appellant and perused the record.

2. This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1988") has arisen from judgment and award dated 21.11.2015 passed by Sri Narendra Kumar Johri, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1, Bulandshahar (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 226 of 2013. The appeal has been filed by Owner of tort feasor Vehicle. Since Tribunal has found that vehicle was being driven by a person who did not possess a valid driving licence, therefore, Insurance Company was not found liable for payment of compensation and owner has been held responsible.

3. Learned counsel for appellant contended that even if driving licence is not found to be genuine, still finding has to be recorded by Tribunal that conduct of owner was negligent and unless such finding is recorded, owner cannot be held responsible. Reliance is placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others (2004) 3 SCC 297.

4. We find no substance in the submission advanced by learned counsel for appellant, and, in our view, the decision cited at bar by learned counsel appellant in fact has settled a law against him. It is not in dispute that appellant is owner of tort feasor vehicle and driver employed by appellant, who was driving vehicle, did not possess a valid driving licence. Section 2(10) of Act, 1988 defines 'driving licence' and reads as under:

"driving licence means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description."

5. Section 3 provides for necessity of driving licence and reads as under:

Section 3-. Necessity for driving licence:-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.

(2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.

6. Section 5 specifically places responsibility upon owner not to allow a vehicle to be driven by a person who does not satisfy requirement of Section 3 or Section 4 of Act, 1988. Section 5 reads as under:

"5. Responsibility of owners of motor vehicles for contravention of sections 3 and 4.- No owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of section 3 or section 4 to drive the vehicle."

7. Therefore there is a complete bar vide Section-5 that owner will have to ensure that vehicle is not driven by a person who does not satisfy requirement of Section -3 of Act, 1988. In the present case, appellant failed to satisfy the aforesaid condition. When a tort feasor vehicle is insured by virtue of Section 149(1) of Act, 1988 liability is fasten upon insurer to pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor. However, certain defence are available to insurer so as not to be held liable as provided in Section 149(2) of Act, 1988. This includes one of defence as a breach of specific condition of Policy as agreed. One of such defence is when person, who was driving vehicle, did not have a duly granted licence or otherwise disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence. Court then in para-84 of judgment in National Insurnace Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh (supra) said:

"The owner of a motor vehicle in terms of Section 5 of the Act has a responsibility to see