JUDGMENT
Surjit Singh, J.
1. The present appeal by New India Assurance Company is directed against the award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby it (the appellant) has been ordered to pay the entire amount of compensation, awarded in favour of the claimant Kanta Devi, rejecting its plea that the man, who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident, namely respondent No. 3 Suresh Kumar, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence.
2. Respondent Kanta Devi (hereinafter called claimant) filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking award of compensation for the death of her son. The owner and the driver of the vehicle were impleaded as respondents. Besides the appellant, in its capacity as insurer, was also impleaded. The appellant/insurer took the plea that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and hence, there was breach of condition of policy as to the person authorized to drive the vehicle and hence, it was not liable to pay the compensation, which the Tribunal might award.
3. The learned Tribunal has rejected the plea of the appellant holding that it has not been proved that the driving licence is not genuine or is fake. Appellant’s grievance is that it had examined an employee of the Licencing Authority, Shimla to prove its plea that the licence was fake, but the Tribunal has rejected the evidence with the observation that there are two Licencing Authorities, one for rural area and one for urban area in Shimla and that the Court below had examined an employee from one authority only to prove its plea that the licence was fake. It is alleged that at the time when the licence purports to have been issued, there was only one Licencing Authority for Shimla’ and therefore the observation made and the view taken by the learned Tribunal is erroneous.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant as also the learned Counsel for the respondents and gone through the record.
Even if the plea of the appellant, based on the evidence of the employee from the Licencing Authority, Shimla, is accepted that the licence is not genuine, still the appellant cannot succeed because of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. . In the said judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held vide Clause (iii) of para-102 at page-33 that the mere proof of breach of condition would not come to the rescue of the insurer and that the insurer is further required to allege and prove that the insured was negligent or careless and because of that the breach of condition had taken place.
5. In the present case, admittedly, the alleged fake licence had been renewed and the renewal was genuine. That means even the renewing authority was mislead into the belief that the licence was genuine. If that is so, the insured, who is not supposed to be so expert in ascertaining the genuineness or otherwise of the licence, as the licencing authority, could have very easily been misled into the belief by the driver that the licence was genuine. Under these circumstances, the insured cannot be said to have been negligent or careless in the matter of employment of the driver to drive the vehicle, in question.
Further vide Clause (vi) of para-102 of the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that in the matter or breach of condition as to the person authorised to drive the vehicle, the breach itself would not be a ground for absolving the insurer from its liability to pay compensation money, unless it is further established that the breach was so fundamental as to have contributed to the occurrence of the accident. In the present case it has not been shown that the accident would not have taken place if the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed.