Harun J:

[1] This is a claim for a declaration that the plaintiff is insured against third party risks and further that he is entitled to be indemnified by the defendants. The facts of the case are not in dispute and may be briefly stated as follows:

[2] On August 3, 1974 the plaintiff was driving his father's motor-car BAK 6130 when it was involved in a collision with another motor-car AQ 2634. Both vehicles were badly damaged. The driver of AQ 2634 and his passenger sustained personal injuries.

[3] Motor-car BAK 6130 was insured with the defendant company under Policy No MP/15994 from December 16, 1973 to December 15, 1974 ie including the date of the accident. A certificate of insurance was issued for the same period in accordance with s 75(4) of the Road Traffic Ordinance 1958.

[4] The plaintiff was stated in the policy to be an "authorised driver" subject to the following proviso:

"Provided that the person driving is permitted in accordance with the licensing or other laws or regulations to drive the Motor Vehicle or has been so permitted and is not disqualified by order of a Court of Law or by reason of any enactment or regulation in that behalf from driving the Motor Vehicle."

[5] The plaintiff first applied for a driving licence in late 1972 when he was 18 years old. He was issued with a learner's licence and passed his driving competency test in March 1973. He was then issued with a driving licence for the period March 5, 1973 to March 4, 1974. His driving licence had since been renewed annually on August 8, 1974 and August 30, 1975. Prior to August 3, 1974 he had never been charged in any Court in connection with a driving offence nor had he prior to that date been disqualified by any Court from holding a driving licence.

[6] It is the contention of the defendants that as the plaintiff did not have a valid driving licence on August 3, 1974 - it having expired on March 4 and was not renewed until August 8, the defendants cannot be held liable as insurers of Motor-car BAK 6130. In a letter to the plaintiff's father dated August 8, 1974 the defendants concluded by stating: "We are therefore repudiating liability against any claim made by you against us in connection to the above accident." There was an exchange of correspondence and finally on January 18, 1975 the plaintiff's father's solicitors wrote to the defendants asking that the matter be referred to arbitration in accordance with Condition 8 of the policy failing which they would take out a writ for a declaration which they did on March 27, 1975.

[7] At the outset, I should say that as far as third party claims are concerned there is no difficulty since by Part IV of the Road Traffic Ordinance, 1958 there is a duty on the part of insurers to satisfy judgments against person insured in respect of third party risks.

[8] What is at issue here is whether the plaintiff is entitled to be indemnified by the defendant insurance company or to put it in another way the question being whether:

(i) the insurance company will pay for the damages to his father's car,

(ii) will the insurance company pay for the damages to car AQ 2634; and

(iii) will the insurance company claim from his father what they had paid out to the driver and passenger of car AQ 2634.

[9] The answer depends on the construction that is put on the proviso imposed for "authorised driver". It is common ground that that proviso consists of two limbs as follows:

"Provided that the person driving

(i) is permitted in accordance with the licensing or other laws or regulations to drive the motor vehicle; or

(ii) has been so permitted and is not disqualified by order of a Court of Law or by reason of any enactment or regulation in that behalf from driving the motor vehicle."

[10] The first limb is unmistakenly clear that is that the driver must have a valid driving licence. It is equally clear on the facts of this case that the plaintiff is not covered by this limb because his driving licence had expired or more precisely h