The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company cannot escape liability in case of an accident merely because the vehicle was being driven without a valid license.

( 1 ) JEEP bearing No. C. P. C.- 3776 and Tempo bearing No. MKH-654 were involved in an accident on 13th June, 1988. This accident took place at about 11. 30 p. m. Claimant respondent No. 1 Prem Narain was travelling in the tempo. It is said that Jeep was being driven rashly and negligently. It is stated that it was this Jeep which dashed into the Tempo in question. This Jeep was insured with National Insurance Co. Injuries were caused on the person of respondent Prem Narain. He claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 6. 44 lacs. The Motor-Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the jeep in question. It quantified the amount of compensation at Rs. 27,500/ -. The findings which have been recorded by the Motor-Accident Claims tribunal are as under :- (i) claimant was admitted in J. A Hospital; (ii) he was so admitted in the hospital for 28 days; (iii) an artificial rod has been planted in the right feet; (iv) injuries were also there on face and on right thingh;it has been held that nasal bone has been permanently damaged; (v) that when the claimant was discharged he was under bandage; (vi) there was shortening of his feet and this has disabled the claimant from walking swiftly. A finding has also been recorded that be may not be able to drive a vehicle as his feet may not be able to generate the requisite pressure when brakes are to be applied;

( 2 ) THE earning capacity of the claimant was found to be Rs. 800/ -. A sum of Rs. 35,000/- was found to be sufficient compensation. Interest at the rate of 12% was also allowed.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the claimant pointed out that cross-objections have been preferred. The valuation was fixed at Rs. 5 lacs. However, on 4th January, 1995, the counsel for the claimant made a statement that he is restricting his claim regarding the cross-objections to Rs. 90,000/- only. Thus this appeal was taken up for hearing along with the cross-objections.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the insurance company has argued that driver of the jeep was not having a valid licence. It has also been argued that the amount awarded is excessive.

( 5 ) THE Insurance Company cannot escape liability merely on the ground that the vehicle was being driven without a valid licence. Reliance in this regard be placed on a decision given by supreme Court in the case reported as Skandia Insurance Co. Limited v. Kokilaben Chandra Vadan, AIR 1987 SC 1184. In this case the vehicle was under the control of the cleaner when the accident took place. He had no driving licence. It was held that an exclusion clause in policy prohibiting driving by a person other than one holding the driving licence would not absolve an insurance company when an accident takes place. The insurance company was accordingly held liable. In Suresh Mohan Chopra v. Lakhi Prabhu Dayal, AIR 1990 SC 1979 the Insurance Company failed to bring on record, (record from the transport authority) which could indicate that the driver had no valid licence. In this case the driver claimed that he had a licence; this was however not produced. The insurance company was held liable.

( 6 ) IN Champa Devi v. Ramsarup, 1994 ACJ 635 (Punj and Har) a claimant was held entitled to compensation and it was observed that he is not to be so deprived merely because the driver was found to be without a licence. again in National Insurancelimited v. Sucha Singh, 1994 Acc LJ 374 (Punj and Har) a fake licence was got renewed. It was held that this would fasten liability on the insurance compnay. In Oriental Insurance Co. v. Tirath Kaur, 1992 ACJ 913 (j and K) insurance company failed to prove by leading positive evidence that the driver had no valid licence. it was held that insurance company would be liable. It is for the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid licence. such is a view expressed in Lalchand v. Kanta, 1992 ACJ 469 (Madh Pra ). Again in New I