ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. MUNSHI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the insurance company under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dated 23.10.1998 in Claim Case No. 353 of 1996.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

(3.) The only point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal is that the driver of the vehicle, who caused accident, had no valid licence. Such contention, in our view, is not tenable. It is well settled that the insurance company will have to establish that the insured was guilty of an infringement or violation of a promise and the insurer has to satisfy the Tribunal or the court that such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was wilful. In this connection judgment and decision in the case of Sohan Lai Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, 1996 ACJ 1044 (SC), may be taken note of. Para 12 of the said judgment at pp. 1051-53 of the said report appears to us to be relevant for the purpose and the same is set out hereinbelow: "(12) Now it has to be examined as to whether the insurance company can be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation in a case where the owner of the vehicle had got the vehicle insured, but the accident took place when it was being driven by a person not holding the driving licence. In the present case the accident took place when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, was in force. Section 96 of the Act prescribed the duty of the insurer to satisfy the judgment against persons insured in respect of third party risks (the parallel provision being section 149 in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). The relevant part of section 96 provided: '96. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risks.