An insurer cannot evade liability based on an invalid driver's license unless a wilful breach by the insured is proven.

1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant insurance company against the impugned award dated 10.5.2007, passed by the First Additional M.A.C.T., Bilaspur in Claim Case No. 147 of 2006, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,74,500 as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the application, holding the non - applicants, including the appellant insurance company, as jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 8.3.2006 deceased Bahoranlal Suryavanshi along with two other persons was going by bullock cart to Aramill. At that time Hywa truck, bearing registration No. CG 10 - A 9938, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the non - applicant No. 1, dashed the bullock cart. As a result °f this accident Bahoranlal Suryavanshi sustained grievous injuries and during the treatment on 9.3.2006 at about 10 p.m. he succumbed to the injuries.

3. The claimants / dependants of the deceased filed a claim case under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs. 4,66,000.

4. The learned Claims Tribunal having regard to the facts situation and the evidence on record awarded a total sum of Rs. 3,74,500 as compensation to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of the application, holding the non - applicants jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. Being aggrieved, the appellant insurance company filed the instant appeal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that although there was an insurance policy issued by the appellant but since the driver of offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount of compensation.

7. On perusal of the papers on record, it is evident that the owner of the vehicle (Murari Lal Gupta) has appeared in the witness - box as AW 12, who had certified (Exh. P10) that the non - applicant No. 1 (Shankar Lal Raj) was driving the offending vehicle since last three months from the date of the accident, i.e., 8.3.2006. In his affidavit the owner has stated that after making inquiry about the experience, work and conduct of the driver and having been satisfied with his driving, the owner had engaged the driver to drive the offending vehicle. In his cross - examination the owner has admitted that although he had seen the driving licence but did not get it verified. The driver of the offending vehicle was having the licence since 25.5.1989, which was being renewed from time to time and according to the last entry it is apparent that the licence was renewed for the period from 6.7.2000 to 5.7.2003 to drive HMV.

8. Umesh Tripathi, Assistant Grade - Ill from the office of the R.T.O., Bilaspur, had appeared in the witness - box and admitted that he had not brought the original register relating to the relevant date, i.e., 25.5.1989 and he was not sure about the issue of driving licence to the driver of the offending vehicle. However, Anil Sao, Administrative Officer of the insurance company, has deposed that he had obtained a report (Exh. D2) from the R.T.O., Bilaspur about the driving licence No. S - 3117 / SP / 89, issued on 25.5.1989, wherein it was reported that such a licence was not issued from the R.T.O., Bilaspur.

9. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh , 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), principles laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru , 2003 ACJ