1. In connection with the vehicular accident that took place on 21.06.1993 involving the Jeep bearing registration No. GRG 6393 belonging to respondent no.3-State Government, respondent no.1, original claimant, had preferred M.A.C.P. No.425/1993 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Ahmedabad. The said claim petition was allowed in part by judgment and award dated 29.09.2000 and original opponents no.2 to 6 were jointly and severally held liable to pay compensation of Rs.66,300/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of application till its realization with proportionate costs.
2. It has been mainly contended on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company that the driver of the Jeep belonging to respondent no.3-State Government was
liable, along with other opponents, to satisfy the claim.
3. Mr. KK Nair learned counsel for respondent no.6- Insurance Company submitted that respondent-State Government is the owner of the Jeep in question and therefore, it is liable to indemnify the claim, after exoneration of appellant-Insurance Company. However, Mr. Dave learned AGP submitted that the driver of the Jeep was holding a driving licence at the time of accident but, it was pending renewal. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly held the appellant-Insurance Company liable to satisfy the claim.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the record that a specific contention was raised before the Tribunal by the appellant-Insurance that the driver of the Jeep was not holding a valid licence at the time of accident. The Tribunal has also recorded the same in para-15 of the impugned award. However, the same has not been appreciated in its proper perspective inasmuch as the Tribunal has held that non- renewal of licence cannot be termed as breach of terms and conditions of Insurance Company. It is a matter of fact that at the time when the accident took place, the driving licence was not in force. In such circumstance, it has to be said that there was breach of the terms and conditions of licence. Hence, the Tribunal has committed serious error in law in holding the appellant- Insurance Company liable to satisfy the claim. Thus, the appellant-Insurance Company is required to be exonerated from the liability of satisfying the claim.
5. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award is modified to the extent that the appellant-Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability of satisfying the claim and compensation shall be made good by the other opponents. It shall be open to the original claimants to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company of the other vehicle. The amount deposited by the appellant and lying with the Tribunal shall be refunded. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.
[K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*