JUDGMENT :

NISHA M. THAKORE, J.

[1.] The present appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act of 1988”) at the instance of the original opponent no.3-National Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred as “Insurance Company”), being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award dated 17.12.2014 (hereinafter to be referred as “judgment and award”) passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.)& Additional District Judge, Junagadh, in Claim Case No.348 of 2004.

[1.1] By the said impugned judgment and award, the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition preferred by the original claimants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988, holding them entitled to seek recovery of sum of Rs.6,73,000/- from the original opponent nos.1 to 3, jointly and severally, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till its actual realization with proportionate costs. Hence, the present appeal.

[2.] Considering the grounds raised in the appeal and the submissions made by learned advocate on record for the appellant-Insurance Company, this Court, vide order dated 08.12.2015, had admitted the appeal. In the Civil Application, this Court, by way of ad-interim relief, had stayed the impugned judgment and award on condition of deposit of the entire award amount before the concerned Tribunal. On the next date of hearing, considering the submissions made by learned advocate for the appellant, about deposit of the entire award amount with interest and costs, this Court had directed disbursement of 30% of the deposited award amount in favour of the original claimants and 70% was directed to be invested, till the final disposal of the appeal.

[3.] The record suggests that the respondents have been duly served with the notice of admission of appeal; however, pending the appeal, the respondent nos.2,4 and 5 have been deleted from the array of the parties. Learned advocate Mr. Amar D. Mithani has entered appearance on behalf of respondent nos.1.1 and 1.2-original claimants and learned advocate Mr. Hiren Modi has entered appearance on behalf of respondent no.3-owner of the vehicle.

[4.] With the able assistance of learned advocates on record for the respective parties, the appeal is heard finally and decided by this judgment.

[5.] Mr. Rushang D. Mehta learned advocate has appeared virtually on behalf of Mr. Dakshesh Mehta, learned advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company and has submitted that the appeal is filed mainly on the ground of the liability of the Insurance Company being wrongly fixed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. Referring to the written statement (Exh.24) filed by the opponent no.3-Insurance Company, he submitted that specific defense that the driver of their insured vehicle was not holding any valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Learned advocate has placed reliance upon the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rambha Devi and Ors. reported in 2025 (3) SCC 95, and has submitted that the issue of non holding of valid and effective driving licence without any separate endorsement to drive the transport vehicle, is no more res integra.

[5.1] Assailing the findings and reasons assigned by the Tribunal on the issue of liability, learned advocate has pointed out that though the driving licence was produced at Exh.86, it was issued only on 07.11.2003 whereas the accident has taken place on 01.11.2003. On bare appreciation of the contents of the aforesaid driving licence, it is evident that, for non-transport vehicle, the validity period was indicated from 25.11.2009 to 24.11.2014, and for transport vehicle, the validity period was indicated from 25.11.2009 to 24.11.2012. The driving licence produced on record at Exh.86, therefore clearly suggests that the said driving licence was issued for LMV (non-