1. The insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 24.7.2002 passed in M.V.C. No. 2839 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore (for short 'the M.A.C.T.'), has preferred this appeal under S.173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

2. It is not in dispute that one Neelakantha succumbed to the fatal injuries on 30.7.2000 involving the motor vehicle being a motor cycle bearing registration No. KA 04 - H 9346 belonging to the respondent No. 8 and insured by the appellant. In the claim petition filed by dependants of the deceased, the appellant herein was arraigned as respondent No. 1, who entered appearance, resisted the claim by filing its statement of objections. The respondent No. 2, the owner of the offending vehicle, though served with the notice, remained absent. M.A.C.T. framed issues, recorded the evidence of the petitioner No. 3 as PW 1, marked 11 documents as Exhs. P - 1 to P - 11. For respondents, the Asstt. Regional Transport Officer was examined as RW 1 and Asstt. Divisional Manager as RW 2 and marked two documents, viz., the insurance policy as Exh. R - 1 and the learner's licence extract as Exh. R - 2.

3. M.A.C.T., appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary, recorded a finding of actionable negligence on the rider of the offending motor vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.3,40,000 with interest at 8 per cent per annum from the date of petition until payment. The M.A.C.T. fastened the liability to pay the compensation on the appellant insurer. The appellant, being aggrieved by the clamping of liability on it to pay the compensation, has preferred this appeal.

4. In this appeal, finding of actionable negligence is not in controversy between the parties. Hence, there is no necessity to review the said finding. Though the contention, in the alternative, is taken with regard to the quantum of compensation, the same is not pressed in this appeal.

5. The only contention advanced by Mr. S. Srishaila, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant is that the M.A.C.T. was not justified in fastening the liability to pay compensation on the insurer. Dilating on the said contention, he would point out the fact that the rider of the motor cycle possessed the learning licence effective for the period from 29.12.1999 to 28.6.2000 which was renewed from 20.7.2000 to 19.1.2001 and that the rider did not possess driving licence as on 19.7.2000, the date of the accident. In the established facts, the rider of the offending motor cycle not having a licence to ride, it is the contention of the learned counsel that it would tantamount to fundamental breach of the terms of insurance policy, which the M.A.C.T. ought to have considered and having not done so, the finding recorded by it is vitiated on account of perversity.

6. Per contra, Mr. S.P. Shankar, learned Senior Counsel for Mrs. Y.N. Leela - vathi, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, would contend that the renewal of the driving licence on the date subsequent to the date of accident, by the rider of the motor cycle would establish that the rider was not disqualified from obtaining the driving licence and in any event, according to him, it is not the case of the insurance company that the rider had incurred any disqualification for holding a licence. He would further contend that it is not the case of the appellant that the rider of the motor cycle had no driving licence at all.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award, the only question that arises for decision making in this appeal is: Whether in the established facts that on the date of the accident, the rider of the offending motor cycle, who held a valid learner's licence which had expired, had not renewed the said licence, but having renewed it on a day subsequent to the date of the accident, could be considered as having proved that the rider of the offend