An insurance company is liable to pay compensation for an accident caused by a driver who held a valid license in the past, even if the license was not renewed at the time of the accident, provided that the driver was not disqualified from holding a license.

( 1 ) THE appellants have filed this appeal against the award dated 6. 9. 1996, passed by IV Additional Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Sagar, in M. V. Case No. 81 of 1991, awarding a claim of rs. 74,000 and interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of claim application, in favour of the respondent-claimant Nos. 1, 2 and 3.

( 2 ) IN this appeal none appeared on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It is not necessary for them to be represented for the purpose of final disposal of this appeal as they are not affected by allowing this appeal, filed by the owner and driver of the vehicle involved, requiring this court to modify the impugned award saying that the respondent No. 4, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. too shall be jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of the impugned award.

( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the respondent No. 4 from the liability to pay compensation jointly and severally along with the appellants on the ground that on the date of accident the licence of appellant No. 2, Gouri Shanker, the driver was not renewed.

( 4 ) IT is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 11. 6. 1991. The appellant No. 2, Gouri Shanker had been the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident and had held a valid and effective licence for almost eight years. However, this licence was not renewed between the period of 23. 7. 1990 and 29. 7. 1991. It was renewed on 29. 7. 1991. The accident occurred on 11. 6. 1991. For this reason, the Claims Tribunal has wrongly held that the respondent no. 4 was not liable. In this connection reliance has been placed on a decision rendered by this court in United India Insurance co. Ltd. v. Sher Ali, 2000 ACJ 507 (MP ). In this case, R. D. Vyas, J. had held that even though the driver had not renewed the licence at the time of accident, the subsequent renewal would show that the vehicle was not driven by any incompetent person and, therefore, his Lordship refused to interfere with the order of the Tribunal granting right of compensation against the insurance company along with the owner and driver of the vehicle.

( 5 ) THE counter argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 is that the appellant No. 2 was not holding a valid licence. His licence was not renewed on the date of accident and, therefore, there was violation of terms of policy.

( 6 ) IT is clear from the evidence on record in shape of Exh. D-2 on record that the appellant No. 2 was holding a valid licence from 23. 7. 1987 to 22. 7. 1990 and, thereafter, the licence was renewed as per the document Exh. D-4, for the period 29. 7. 1991 up to 28. 7. 1994. Therefore, initially, the appellant No. 2 was holding an effective licence for driving the concerned tractor which caused the accident. It is true that on the date of accident, the licence was not renewed. It was renewed subsequently as already stated. In the light of above facts, it is necessary to construe the condition on which the insurance company would be liable. The concerned condition has been mentioned in the insurance policy, Exh. D-1, as follows:"persons or classes of persons entitled to drive, Any of the following: (a) The insured (b) Any other person who is driving on the insured's order or with his permission. Provided that the person driving holds or had held and has not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence with all the required endorsements thereon as per the Motor vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder for the time being in force to drive the category of motor vehicle insured hereunder. "it is clear from the proviso to the above condition (b) that the person driving holds or had held and has not been disqualified from holding an effective driving licence with all the re