SATISH Vs. LATIF KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the claimant challenging the award dated 26-3-1999, passed by learned IInd Additional Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur, in Claim Case No. 132 of 1998.

(2.) ONE of the ground on which the impugned award was challenged by the appellant is that Insurance Company was wrongly exonerated by the learned Claims Tribunal on the ground that the Driver did not have a valid and legal licences to ply the vehicle in question. It is with this finding, the Insurance Company was exonerated by the learned Claims Tribunal.

(3.) THE question whether the Insurance Company can be exonerated if the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid and legal licence to indemnify the liability of third party has since been settled by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case United India Insurance Company v. Lehru and Ors. , reported in JT 2003 (2) SC 595. Their Lordships while confirming the earlier view of the Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company v. Kamta and Ors. , JT 2001 (4) SC 235 and JT 1996 (5) SC 728, held that even though driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence on the date of accident, yet Insurance Company has to indemnify the liability qua third party. The issue is no longer remain res integra by the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in these three cases.