Judgment

DESAI, J.:- A monopoly successfully avoided its legally incurred liability on the wholly untenable ground. That is the scenario in these appeals. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd., a nationalised company having the monopoly of general insurance is the fifth respondent in the first appeal and the second respondent in the second appeal. It would be referred to as an insurance company hereinafter.

2. An accident occurred on Praca de Jorge Barrete Road, Margao on May 17,1976 around 10.30 A.M. in which one Sita Gomes and her sister-in-law Ida Menezes were injured. Ida succumbed to her injuries and Sita Gomes recovered. The offending vehicle was a pickup van belonging to M/s. Narcinva V. Kamat, a firm carrying on business at Margao, Goa. The vehicle was insured With the insurance company. Two petitions claiming compensation came to be filed; one by the heirs of Ida and the other by Sita. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal for short) held that the driver of the van was responsible for the accident as the van was being driven at the relevant time, rashly and negligently. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 75,000/- as compensation to the heirs of Ida and Rs. 3,000/- to Sita.

3. In the proceedings before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company, appeared and contended that according to the terms of the contract of insurance as evidenced by the policy of insurance, the vehicle can be driven. either by a driver in the employment of the insured or with the permission of the insured by the one who holds a valid driving licence. In respect of this contention the Tribunal framed Issues Nos. 7 and 8 in both the petitions in the following terms:

"7 Whether the respondent No. 6 (insurance company) proves that there is no liability on them as the respondent No. 2 Narcinva Kamat who was driving the vehicle involved in the accident was not holding any effective driving licence?

8. Whether the respondent No. 6 proves that under the provisions of Sec. 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the policy in force their liability in any event is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/- in all both in respect of this Claim Petition as well as other Claim Petition filed in the same Tribunal on account of the same accident being Claim Petition No. 22-23/76 filed in the Tribunal on account of the same accident."

The Tribunal answered both the issues, in favour of the insurance company observing that at the time of the accident the vehicle was being driven by appellant No. 2, the partner of the firm, which was the owner of the vehicle and as the driver did not produce his driving licence; it must be held that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. The Tribunal, therefore, concluded that in the absence of a valid driving licence, there was a breach of the contract of insurance and the insurance company was absolved from the liability under the policy of insurance.

4. The firm and its partner preferred two appeals before the Panaji Bench (Goa) of the High Court of Bombay. A Division Bench of the High Court agreed with the findings of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeals. Hence these appeals by special leave.

5. The scope of the appeals is very limited. The appeals are by the firm, owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident and one of its partner who it was alleged was shown to be driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and while granting leave it was limited to the question : Whether both the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in holding that the insurance company was not liable to satisfy the award under the contract of insurance.

6. The undisputed facts are that the pick-up-van-motor vehicle bearing No. GDT-9510 belongs to the first appellant-firm and the second appellant is the partner of the firm. This vehicle was involved in an accident that occurred on May 17, 1976 at around 10.30 a.m. There is a concurrent finding that the vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by the partner who was then driving the vehicle a