A.K. Mishra, J.
1. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the insurer aggrieved by the award dated February 23, 2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg in Claim Case No. 41/99.
2. Claimants/respondents 1 to 5 filed an application for compensation arising out of death of Mahendra Nath Tripathi in an accident dated November 12, 1998, which took place at 5:15 a.m. near Bihar Hotel, G.E. Road, Power House Bhilai. The deceased along with his son; Sandeep Tripathi at the relevant time was going to power house railway station on Luna moped bearing registration No. MP-24-H/7826, when the truck bearing registration No. MP-23/2199 came from the opposite direction and dashed against the Luna. Mahendra Nath Tripathi died and Sandeep Tripathi sustained injuries.
3. Deceased was in employment of Bhilai Steel Plant. His Salary was Rs. 13,422/-. Claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,75,892/-.
4. The insurer contended that the driving licence of respondent No. 6; Attar Singh had expired on 24-5-1998. The accident took place on November 12, 1998. Thus, on November 12, 1998 he was not authorized to drive the said truck. A certificate issued by R.T.O. was filed which reflected that the licence was issued to Attar Singh prior to 10 years on March 28, 1989 which was valid upto March 29, 1992. It was renewed on May 25, 1996 to May 24, 1998. Thereafter it was again renewed from November 20, 1998 to November 19, 2001. The certificate issued by Regional Transport Officer shows that the date of issue of driving licence is March 30, 1989 and date of its expiry is November 19, 2001.
5. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 7,58,640/- as compensation. It has been found from the pay slip that the gross salary of thedeceased was Rs. 13,095/- deduction of l/3rd amount i.e. Rs. 4,385/- has been made towards self expenditure. Dependency has been assessed at Rs. 8,710/-. Deceased was aged 56 years. Multiplier of 7 has been applied. Thus, loss of dependency has been assessed at Rs. 7,31,640/-. Remaining amount is towards loss of consortium and funeral expenses. Interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till payment has also been awarded. The Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the insurance company is liable to indemnify.
6. Learned counsel for the insurer; Shri N.S. Ruprah has vehemently submitted that it is a case where from the certificate produced by the insurer from the Regional Transport Officer, it is apparent that the licence issued in the year 1989 was not renewed on the date of accident i.e. on November 12, 1998. Hence, the insurer cannot be held liable as the person driving the vehicle must hold an effective and valid driving licence to drive the vehicle insured at the time of accident.
7. Firstly; we are not satisfied by mere production of certificate of Regional Transport Officer that the insurer has discharged its burden to prove that the driver's licence expired on the date of accident. Document No. 2 filed with the appeal indicates the date of issue of licence to Shri Attar Singh, Driver as March 30, 1989 and date of expiry as November, 2001. Thereafter in the bottom there are certain entries of the different period without mentioning anything further. Those periods are 20-3-1989 to 29-3-1992, 25-5-1996 to 24-5-1998 and 20-4-1998 to 19-11-2001. The entry No. 5 of this certificate shows the date of issue to be March 30, 1989 and date of expiry to be November 19, 2001, which goes to show that the licence of the driver was issued on March 30, and has been validated till November 19, 2001. No witness has been examined on behalf of the insurer to show that any dis-qualification was incurred by the driver. On the contrary, the certificate goes to show that he has been found fit to drive the vehicle from the year 1989 till the year 2001. The Apex court in case of Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy and others, AIR 1996 SC 2627 has held that 'under Section 96 (corresponding to new Section 149) Section 96 (2) (b) (ii) should not be interpreted in a technical manner. Sub-section (2) of Section 96 only enables the insurance company to defend itself in respect of the liability to pay compensation on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2) including that there has been a contravention of the condition excluding the Vehicle being driven by any person who was not duly licensed. This bar on face of it operates on the person insured. If the person who has got the Vehicle insured has allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person who is not duly licensed then only that clause shall be attracted. In a case where the person who has got insured the vehicle with the insurance company, has appointed a duly licensed driver and if the accident takes place when the vehicle is being driven by a person not duly licensed on the basis of the authority of the driver duly authorised to drive the vehicle whether the insurance company in that event shall be absolved from its liability The Apex Court held that the insurance company will have to establish that the insured was guilty of an infringement or violation of promise. The insurer has also tosatisfy the Tribunal or the Court that such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was wilful. If the insured has taken all precautions by appointing a duly licensed driver to drive the vehicle in question and it has not been established that it was the insured who allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person not duly licensed, then the insurance company cannot repudiate its statutory liability under sub-section (1) of Section 96. In the facts of Sohan Lal Passi's case Apex Court had found that the owner has engaged a licensed driver and had placed the vehicle in his charge. The Apex Court has further observed that while interpreting the contract of insurance, the Tribunals and Courts have to be conscious of the fact that right to claim compensation by heirs and legal representatives of the victims of the accident is not defeated on technical grounds. Unless it is established on the materials of the record that it was the insured who had wilfully violated the condition of the policy by allowing a person not duly licensed to drive the vehicle when the accident took place, the insurer shall be deemed to be a judgment-debtor in respect of the liability in view of sub-section (1) of Section 96 of the Act. The Apex Court also took note of decision in another case; Kashiram Yadav v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co., AIR 1989 SC 2002. It has been observed in Para 13 as under:
'13. This Court in the case of Kashiram Yadav v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co., (1989) 4 SCC 128 : (AIR 1989 SC 2002) reiterated the view expressed in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, AIR 1987 SC 1184 (supra). White referring to that case it was said : (at pp. 2003-2004 of AIR)
'.......... There the facts found were quite different. The vehicleconcerned in that case was undisputedly entrusted to the driver who had a valid licence. In transit the driver stopped the vehicle and went to fetch some snacks from the opposite shop leaving the engine on. The ignition key was at the ignition lock and not in the cabin of the truck. The driver had asked the cleaner to take care of the truck. In fact the driver had left the truck in care of the cleaner. The cleaner meddled with the vehicle and caused the accident. The question arose whether the insured (owner) had committed a breach of the condition incorporated in certificate of insurance since the cleaner operated the vehicle on the fatal occasion without driving licence. This Court expressed, the view that it is only when the insured himself en trusted the vehicle to a person who does not hold a driving licence, he could be said to have committed breach of the condition of the policy. It must be established by the Insurance Company that the breach is the part of the insured. Unless the insured is at fault and is guilty of a breach of the condition, the insurer cannot escape from the obligation to indemnify the insured. It was also observed that when the insured has done everything within his power inasmuch as he has engaged the licensed driver and has placed thevehicle in his charge with the express or implied mandate to drive himself, it cannot be said that the insured is guilty of any breach. We affirm and reiterate the statement of law laid down in the above case. We may also state that without the knowledge of the insured, if by driver's acts or omission others meddle with the vehicle and cause an accident, the insurer would be liable to indemnify the insured. The insurer in such a case cannot take the defence of a breach of the condition in the certificate of insurance.
We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in the case of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan (supra).'
8. Thus, each and every violation or infringement on the part of the insured cannot absolve the insurer from the liability. In the present case, in the facts and circumstances we find that the driver was having licence from the year 1989, it was renewed time and again and after the date of accident also it has been renewed. Thus, it is not the case of the insurer that the non-renewal of the driving licence of the driver was to the knowledge of insured. In the instant case, on facts we find that the insured had taken the care to appoint a duly licensed driver for driving the vehicle. Thus, the insurer cannot escape the liability particularly when driver has not been disqualified as licence has been renewed.
9. ADivision Bench of Karnataka High Court in Mrs. Elizabeth Leema v. T. Narayan Rao and others, ILR 1979 Karnataka 1013, where licensed driver L. D'Souza had held a licence which expired on 22nd January, 1972 and was not disqualified to obtain a renewal of the said licence on the date of the incident, in fact his licence was renewed on 2nd March, 1972 within a few days of the incident, it was held that the insurer is liable to pay and cannot escape its liability. In the present case also within a few days of the accident, licence was renewed.
10. In the present case the licence has not been produced, only a certificate has been produced. In case of Suresh Mohan Chopra v. Lakhi Prabhu Dayal and others, AIR 1990 SC 1979, the insured failed to bring on record from the Transport Authority which could indicate that the driver had no valid driving licence. The licence was not produced. The insurance company was held liable.
11. The Tribunal has noticed the decision of this Court in United India Insurance Co, v. Sherali, 1999 (1) MPWN 90. In the said case accident took place on 30-8-1993. The licence was held earlier and was renewed subsequently. A Single Judge of this Court took the view that a person has held or had held licence was not disqualified could be a good driver. Once the licence is renewed, it cannot be said that the vehicle was driven by any incompetent person.
12. Thus, we arc of the view that the insurer cannot escape its liability to indemnify and to pay the compensation to the claimants. Considering thesalary of the deceased, his age, the multiplier adopted is reasonable and that has also not been assailed. Quantum has also not been seriously assailed by the learned counsel for the appellant and rightly so.
13. In the result, we find no merit in the appeal. Same is dismissed.
14. Misc. Appeal dismissed.