JUDGMENT
Virender Singh, J.
1. The appeal is being taken up for final disposal after the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in National Insurance Company Limited v. Parveen Kumar and Ors. , decided on 8.11.2004.
2. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle (Matador No. DL-lC-D-2181) have impugned the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, dated 29.11.2000, whereby a sum of Rs. 40,000/- along with interest @ 12 per cent is awarded, to Ram Phal respondent No. 1 (claimant) on account of the injuries received by him in a vehicular accident. Insurer of the offending vehicle (United India Insurance Company), respondent No. 3, has been absolved to indemnify the insured on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle was not competent to drive Matador because the licence held by him was of car, jeep and motor-cylce and it did not include the light motor, vehicle and, therefore, there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Appellant No. l was, in fact, the superdar of the offending vehicle, whereas Angrej Singh was the registered owner of the said vehicle, therefore, the present two appellants and Angrej Singh (respondent No. 2) were held liable jointly and severally to satisfy the award.
3. The record reveals that there is delay of seven days in filing the appeal, which already stands condoned by this Court vide order dated 15.10.2001.
4. We have heard Mr. Nehra, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vinod Chaudhary, learned Counsel representing respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company. No one has appeared for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
5. Mr. Chaudhary, learned Counsel representing respondent No. 3, the Insurance Company very fairly, states that in the light of the judgment of Full Bench rendered in National Insurance Company Limited, v. Pareveen Kumar and Ors. (supra) the finding of the learned Tribunal in favour of the Insurance Company deserves to be disturbed and the insurer has to indemnify the insured. We appreciate the candid stand taken by Mr. Chaudhary.
6. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Parveen Kumar and Ors. (supra) the Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court, while dealing with the similar controversy observed as under:
We may, however, hasten to add that the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation by simply pleading that the licence granted to the driver being for one class or description of vehicle but the vehicle involved in the accident was of the different class or description, unless it is proved that the cause of accident was the licence granted to the driver being for one class or description. The observations made by the Supreme Court presuppose that if the driver was driving vehicle, of which he might not be holding licence as such, but was holding a driving licence of a different description of vehicle, and the driving method of both the vehicles, for which licence was obtained and the one which was being driven, was the same and when even the mechanism of the vehicle is also same, the defence projected by the Insurance Company with regard to the driver not possessing requisite type of licence, could be of no avail to it.
7. In the aforesaid Full Bench judgment, this Court has also followed the ratio of a judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh , wherein the Apex Court while considering various objections raised by the Company in support of violations qua driving licences, observed as under:
That the cases may also raise where a holder of driving licence for Might motor vehicle’ is found to be driving a ‘maxi cab’, ‘motor cab’ or ‘omnibus’ for which he has no licence. In each case on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening ’causes’ like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence.
It cannot be said that in the case in hand, the driver Gulab Singh of the offending vehicle, who was in possession of valid driving licence of car, jeep and motor-cycle could possibly not drive Matador. We, therefore, find there was no nexus of the driver not possessing the requisite type of licence with the alleged accident.
8. No other controversy has cropped up in this case for our consideration.
9. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion the present appeal is allowed. The impugned award dated 29.11.2000 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak, qua the present appellants is set side. The appellants and respondent No. 2 – Angrej, the registered owner of the offending vehicle, are discharged from their liability to satisfy the award. The insurance Company (appellant No. 3) is directed to indemnify the insured with regard to the entire compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal. In case the appellants have already deposited the amount of compensation before the Tribunal, they shall be at liberty to recover the same from the Insurance Company (respondent No. 3), according to law.