Interpretation of legal provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly the conditions of the contract of insurance and the meaning of 'duly licensed' under Section 149(2).

Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.

1. Both these appeals have arisen out of the common judgment rendered by the Tribunal on 25.04.2009, hence are being adjudicated together.

2. The accident occurred in the intervening night of 8-9.8.2008 at 2AM, when the truck no.UHQ-0747 being driven rashly and negligently within the premises of some factory situated in Roorkee dashed a watchman Mr. Janeshwar Prasad, who suffered serious injuries on account of such accident and later at some point of time, he succumbed to those injuries. So, his widow Smt. Tarawati Devi along with three other legal representatives came up before the Tribunal by way of filing claim petition 96 of 2008.

3. Learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of rupees one lakh, as against the demand of rupees twelve lakh fifty thousand.

4. This award has been challenged by the claimants seeking enhancement of the same by way of filing AO No.258 of 2009, while insurance company has come up for complete setting aside of such award by filing AO No.338 of 2009.

5. Learned counsel for the insurance company has argued before this Court that the offending vehicle was driven by Mr. Hasanuddin, who was the owner of such vehicle as well. Although, his address has been shown to be the resident of Roorkee town, but in the license which he produced before the Tribunal his permanent address has been shown to be of Allahabad and such driving license, having validity to drive heavy goods vehicle w.e.f. 12.12.2005 to 11.12.2008; therefore, the Tribunal relying on validity of such driving license has fastened the liability to pay the compensation on the insurance company.

6. It has further been argued that when the matter was investigated by the competent officer of the insurer, then the facts were revealed that Mr. Hasanuddin, a resident of Roorkee had got his license issued from Saharanpur and later on it was continued to be renewed from the office of licensing authority of Haridwar.

7. The information supplied by licensing authority with illegible signature reveals that such license of Mr. Hasanuddin S/o Idwa Hassan, R/o Roorkee, Haridwar was basically valid from 30.08.1986 to 31.10.1992 to drive heavy goods vehicle from Saharanpur and it was continuously renewed upto 03.02.2008 and lastly it was renewed w.e.f. 05.08.2008 to 04.08.2011, meaning thereby, the license could not be got renewed from 04.02.2008 to 04.08.2008 i.e. almost for six months and within this period the accident occurred on 09.06.2008. Thereby, it should be treated as that the driver Mr. Hasanuddin was not having any valid driving license and since he himself was the owner of the offending vehicle, therefore, liability should have been fastened upon the owner of the vehicle.

8. That apart learned Senior Counsel for the insurance company has also argued that as per the Section 6 of Motor Vehicles Act, Mr. Hasanuddin could not have two driving licenses at a time.

9. Having considered the contention of learned Senior Counsel, the Court would not like to set aside the award on either of these grounds for the reason that if Mr. Hasanuddin, the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle was having two driving licenses at a time, then, he was vulnerable for penal action at the end of transport authorities. But so far as the question of determination of fastening the liability is concerned, such issue cannot be taken into consideration.

10. As regards the failure of renewal of such driving license for the period of almost six months, as indicated above, is concerned, incidentally, the accident occurred in such period but even then also the insurance company cannot be exonerated from satisfying the award. In this regard, the position has been well explained by the constitutional bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others, reported in (2004)3 SCC 297, wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court has summarized the law in the following words:-

“Under the Act holding of a vali