Driving without a valid domestic license violates the Motor Vehicles Act, invalidating insurance coverage and allowing recovery of compensation paid to claimants.

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the 3rd respondent insurer in O.P.

(MV)No.330 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal, a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by respondents 1 and 2, claiming compensation on account of the death of one Slokamani, wife of the 1st respondent and mother of the 2nd respondent, in a motor accident which occurred on 27.02.2011, while she was walking along a public road. At the place of accident, she was knocked down by a Bolero car bearing registration No.KL-26/8492, owned by the 3rd respondent and driven by the 4th respondent. In the accident, she sustained fatal injuries, who succumbed to the injuries at the place of accident. Alleging that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the 4th respondent driver, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs.9,46,000/-

under various heads.

2. In the impugned award, the Tribunal arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of Bolero Car by the 4th respondent driver.

Since the said vehicle was covered with valid insurance policy, the appellant insurer was held liable to indemnify the insured. Though the appellant insurer raised a contention that the 4th respondent driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, the Tribunal did not consider that issue and the liability was fastened upon the appellant. Under various heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.8,59,000/- together with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition, i.e., 11.04.2011 til the date of expiry of 60 days from the date of the award, and in case of default, interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The award passed by the Tribunal to the extent of not granting recovery right to the appellant insurer to recover the amount of compensation paid to the claimants, by proceeding against the 3rd respondent owner, is under challenge in this appeal.

3. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated

16.09.2014 in I.A.No.1321 of 2014, 50% of the award amount has already been deposited by the appellant insurer.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant insurer, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent/1st claimant and also the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent owner.

5. The issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the appellant insurer can be granted recovery right to recover the amount of compensation paid to the claimants by proceeding against the 3rd respondent owner.

6. The fact that, as on the date of accident, the 4th respondent driver was not holding a valid Indian Driving Licence, is not in dispute. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent owner would contend that, at the time of accident, the 4th respondent driver was holding a driving licence issued by the licensing authority in United Arab Emirates and as such, it cannot be said that he was driving the offending vehicle without a valid driving licence. The said contention cannot be accepted. In view of the prohibition under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him, authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motorcycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him to do so. Clause (10) of Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act defines 'driving licence' to mean the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorising the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than a learner, a motor vehicle or motor vehicle of any specified class or description. A combined reading of Clause (10) of Section 2 and sub-section (1) of of the Act would make it explicitly clear that a person holding drivin