Khem Chand Sharma, J.
1. Since common question of law is involved in both the appeals filed by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. arising out of the award dated 4.10.2004, allowing the claim petitions filed by the claimants, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 12.1.2004 at 7.30 a.m., deceased Krishna Kumar and injured Rafiq along with others were travelling in a jeep bearing No. RJ 05-C 1739 and as soon as the jeep reached near village Jaraila, the driver of the truck No. RJ 11-G 0683 dashed it against the jeep by driving the truck rashly and negligently, as a result of which Krishna Kumar died on the spot and Rafiq sustained serious injuries. The wife and daughter of Krishna Kumar and Rafiq himself filed claim petitions. The learned Tribunal vide impugned award decided both the claim petitions and awarded compensation.
3. The only legal ground to challenge the award urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that at the time of accident the driver of the truck was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.
4. From a perusal of the impugned award, it is evident that the contention on behalf of the insurance company before the learned Tribunal was that the driver was authorised to drive only light motor vehicle as per driving licence, Exh. 6 and that he was not having any valid licence to drive heavy goods vehicle. The learned Tribunal also arrived at the same conclusion that driver of the truck was authorised to drive only light motor vehicle. However, it appears, that the learned Tribunal relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), concluded that merely because the driver was having licence to drive only light motor vehicle and at the time of the accident he was driving heavy goods vehicle, cannot be a ground for the insurance company to avoid its liability. However, in ground (c) of memo of appeal, the appellant company has averred that driver of the truck was authorised to drive heavy goods vehicle from 11.11.1994 to 4.7.1997. Thereafter, driving licence was not got renewed for heavy goods vehicle.
5. In the course of arguments, learned Counsel for both the parties agreed to this factual aspect that Shakil Ahmed, driver of the truck was granted licence from 512.1991 to 2.3.2006 to drive light motor vehicle. Later, on 11.11.1994, an endorsement was made and he was authorised to drive a heavy goods vehicle. Yet again on 4.7.1997, an endorsement authorising him to drive a heavy passenger vehicle was made in the licence.
6. Referring to the provisions of Section 14 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that a licence to drive a transport vehicle is effective only for a period of three years. The learned Counsel further pointed out to the definition of 'transport vehicle' as defined in Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which includes a goods carriage. Therefore, the inevitable conclusion would be that driving licence authorising to drive heavy goods vehicle was valid and effective only up to 10.11.97 and thereafter it was not renewed. Thus, in the light of above breach of conditions of policy, the insurance company is not liable to make payment of compensation. In the alternative, it was contended that at least recovery rights should be granted to the insurance company, directing owner of the vehicle to reimburse the amount of compensation which the insurance company was compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal.
7. Taking it to be correct that licence, to drive transport vehicle shall be effective for a period of three years, the question that emerges for consideration is, whether owner of the truck can be held liable for breach of policy condition? No doubt true that owner of a motor vehicle has a responsibility to see that vehicle is not driven by a person who does not satisfy the provisions of Sections 3 and 4 of Motor Vehicles Act The proposition of law is no longer res Integra that the person who alleges breach must prove the same. Therefore, the insurer must prove that owner was guilty of wilful breach of conditions of insurance policy. In my view, mere invalid driving licence at the time of accident is not a defence available to the insurer either against the insured or third parties. To avoid its liability the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care regarding use of vehicle by a duly licensed driver. It is not disputed that the licence in question was valid for the period from 5.2.1991 to 2.3.2006 and an endorsement of addition to drive heavy goods vehicle was made on 11.11.1994. At that time no period of validity to drive transport vehicle was mentioned on the driving licence. Therefore, per se the driving licence was valid up to March 2006. In the above circumstances, it cannot be held that owner of the vehicle did not take adequate care and caution to verify the period of effectiveness of driving licence and hence owner of the vehicle cannot be held liable for breach of policy condition. In this view of the matter, the argument raised is without any substance and hence rejected.
8. It need be mentioned that learned Counsel for appellant has not challenged the award on merits and in my view, rightly so, because in Claim Case No. 13 of 2004 Tribunal while awarding compensation has taken into consideration the age of the deceased to be 42 years and his income of Rs. 68,448 per annum at the time of accident and after deducting 1/3rd of income towards his personal expenses and having assessed his net income of Rs. 45,632 per annum, applied the multiplier of 15 and awarded a sum of Rs. 7,00,000 in all under different heads. Similarly, while awarding compensation of Rs. 16,000 in Claim Case No. 68 of 2004, the learned Tribunal has taken into account the injury report, X-ray reports, medical bills, etc. It has also been taken note of the fact that no certificate to show the percentage of permanent disability was produced. Thus, on merits also, the impugned award calls for no interference.
For the reasons aforesaid, the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs.