Liability of the insurance company affirmed as the driver held a valid driving license per statutory requirements.

1. Heard Mrs. R.D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. Insurance company is on appeal under S.173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, against the judgment and award dated 15.5.2019, passed by the learned Member, MACT No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, in MAC Case No. 2183/2015.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 9.2.2015, at about 1.50 p.m., when the minor son of the claimants / respondents, Sakibur Rahman, was standing on the roadside of PWD road in front of his house, suddenly a vehicle bearing No. AS 15 - C 1671, coming from Barpeta Road towards Domonighat in a rash and negligent manner, knocked down the minor son of the claimants / respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as a result of which he died on the spot.

4. The appellant insurance company as opposite party contested the case by filing written statement, wherein it is stated that the insurance company declined to accept the liability, if there was any violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and / or the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time of accident.

5. On the other hand, the owner / driver of the vehicle also submitted their written statement and admitted that the vehicle bearing No. AS 15 - C 1671 was involved in the accident, resulting in death of the minor son of the claimants / respondents, but denied all other averments made by the claimants in the claim petition. They have stated that at the relevant time of accident, the vehicle was duly insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the driver had valid licence and as such, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, if awarded by the Tribunal.

6. In this case, the claimant was examined as PW 1 and the insurance company also adduced two witnesses in support of its plea. After hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties, the learned Tribunal has delivered the judgment awarding compensation amounting to Rs.3,00,000 in favour of the claimants / respondents.

7. The factum of accident has not been challenged in this appeal. The learned counsel for the insurance company has only submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence to drive a public service vehicle. On the face of the driving licence, it can be seen if the driver had an endorsement to drive a public service vehicle, which is clear violation of the policy conditions. As such, the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the judgment dated 15.5.2019 deserves to be set aside.

8. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company has relied on the following case - laws:
(1) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan , 2004 ACJ 721 (SC);
(2) Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba , 2018 ACJ 690 (SC);
(3) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sikandar Ali , MAC Appeal No. 66 of 2014;
(4) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sonali Kalita, IA (Civil) No. 3149 of 2017 in MAC Appeal No. 467 of 2017.

9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the claimants / respondents argued that though it is alleged that the driver was not having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle, but it is clearly stated in the driving licence that the driver had valid licence to drive transport vehicle. The offending vehicle bearing No. AS 15 - C 167 is a cruiser, and the driver of the vehicle is authorised to drive a transport vehicle. Under such circumstances, the driver of the vehicle is holding a valid driving licence to drive a