Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
G.P. Mittal

JUDGMENT

G.P. Mittal, J.

1. The appeal is directed against a judgment dated 21.4.2012 whereby a compensation of Rs. 1,07,000 was awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (the Claims Tribunal) in favour of Respondent No. 1 for having suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident which occurred on 4.5.2009. At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the Appellant presses the appeal only to the extent of seeking recovery rights against the insured. It is urged by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that it was amply proved that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and, that is why, he was also challaned for driving the vehicle without any licence (at the time of accident). The driver and the owner had also contested the petition filed by Respondent No. 1 before the Claims Tribunal. The Appellant Insurance Company having discharged the initial onus of proving the breach of the terms and conditions of the policy, it was for the owner to have shown that the owner had taken sufficient steps to ensure that the vehicle is not driven by a driver without holding a valid licence.

2. Mr. A.K. Mishra, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the owner (Respondent No. 3) opposes the appeal. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 refers to the driving licence available on page 103 of the appeal being MAC. APP. 1072/2012 and also on the Trial Court record. He submits that the licence was issued on 7.3.2000 and was valid upto 5.11.2012. It is urged by the learned Counsel for Respondent No. 3 that Respondent No. 3 did not have any knowledge of expiry of the driving licence held by the driver. The issue of breach of insurance policy was detailed by the Claims Tribunal in paras 28 to 30 of the judgment, which are extracted hereunder:

"28. R3W1 has stated that the respondent No. 1 was issued licence on 7.3.2006 which expired on 6.3.2009. Thereafter, it was renewed w.e.f. 11.6.2009 and on the day of accident i.e. on 4.5.2009 the licence was not valid. In this case I.O. has filed the charge-sheet adding the Sections 3/181 of Motor Vehicles Act stating that the respondent No. 1 did not have valid driving licence on the date of accident. R3W3 has stated that he had investigated the matter and found that the licence of respondent No. 1 was not valid on the day of accident. R3 W2 proved the policy Ex. R3W2/A as per which a person must have a valid and effective licence to drive the offending vehicle.

29. The law provides one month's grace period for renewal of expired licence. Thus, the driving licence even having expired at the time of accident cannot be held to be invalid. Driving licence continues to exist despite expiry of period of its validity unless the driver has been disqualified, he continues to be duly licensed. In the case of Ramesh Chand v. United India Insurance Company, 1991 (1) ACC 78, the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle had expired one month before the date of accident and was renewed few months after the accident. Relying upon the decision in Ramphal v. Krishna Makkar, MANU/PH/0396/1988 : 1989 ACJ 1126, it was held that if the driver at the time of accident had a valid driving licence or had held one earlier, the Insurance Company was liable ipso facto. In the case of K.G. Srinivas Murthy v. Habib Khatun, MANU/KA/0773/2001 : 2002 ACJ 557, it was held that mere non-renewal of licence on the date of accident had not contributed to the causing of accident, more so when there was no case that the driver does not know driving or the driver has not been ........