Viney Mittal, J.
1. An accident took place on June 9, 1996 between Jeep bearing registration No. DL-5C-A-8789 and the truck bearing registration No. HR-39-0121. As a result of the aforesaid accident, Roshan Lal a passenger travelling in Jeep died. The dependents of the deceased. Roshan Lal filed the present claim petition.
2. Learned Tribunal on the basis of the material available on the record found that both the drivers of the vehicles, namely Jeep as well as the truck were jointly negligent. Consequently, the claimants were held entitled to compensation, which was assessed at Rs. 4,03,200/-. A plea was raised by the National Insurance Company Limited that the driver of the truck which was insured with the Company was not possessing a valid driving licence. However, the aforesaid plea was rejected by the learned Tribunal and it was held that although the original licence was not valid but the same had been renewed. The National Insurance Company has filed the present appeal.
3. Two arguments have been raised by Shri L.M. Suri, learned Senior counsel appearing for the National Insurance Company. Firstly, it has been argued that the driver of the offending truck was not possessing a valid driving licence and, therefore, the Company-appellant was not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. Secondly, it has been argued that, in any case, once both the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident i.e. the truck as well as jeep had been found to be negligent, then the liability for payment of compensation should have been apportioned between National Insurance Company, the insurer of the offending truck and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending Jeep in equal sharers. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the case of Narinder Pal Singh v. State of Punjab (1988-2)94 P.L.R. 208.
4. I have duly considered both the contentions of the learned senior counsel.
5. So far as the first contention of the learned Counsel with regard to the driving licence of the offending truck being fake is concerned, the said argument is not available to the insurer-Company, in view of the law laid down in the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh and Ors. : AIR2004SC1531 . In the aforesaid case, it has been laid down by the Supreme Court that mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time are not in themselves relevant defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third party. In these circumstances, first argument of the learned senior counsel is without any force and is rejected. However, the second argument of the learned senior counsel deserves to be accepted. A finding of fact has been recorded by the Tribunal that the drivers of both the offending vehicles i.e. the truck as well as the jeep were equally rash and negligent. Whereas the truck in question was insured with appellant-National Insurance Company, the jeep involved in the accident was insured with Oriental Insurance Company. In these circumstances, it is only natural that the liability of both the insurance company should be equal. The judgment of Narinder Pal's case (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel duly supports the aforesaid argument.
6. Consequently, it is held that the amount of compensation shall be payable jointly and severally by all the respondents. The liability of the National Insurance Company shall be shared equally by Oriental Insurance Company.
The present appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid modification in the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.