TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE only question involved in this appeal is that whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand in Motor Accident Claims Case No. 376/2001 by its award dated 24th Oct. , 2002 has wrongly exonerated the respondent-Insurance Company from liability under the insurance policy, which was obtained by the appellants. The facts, which are not in dispute are that the driver of the vehicle was holding valid driving licence and that expired on 27. 2. 2000. The accident occurred on 28. 2. 2001 at 8:00 AM after expiry of the driving licence of the driver. The driving licence was renewed by the driver on the same day, i. e. , on 28. 2. 2001, meaning thereby the license was renewed after the occurrence of the accident. The Tribunal held that Insurance Company is not liable to reimburse the claim amount to the owner of the vehicle because at the time of accident, the driver was not holding the valid driving licence. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the driver was holding the driving licence and even if he was not having a renewed driving licence with him at the time of accident on 28. 2. 2001 and his driving licence was renewed by the competent authority on 28. 2. 2001, then he can be treated to be a person holding a driving licence not renewed, but cannot be said to be a person, who has never been issued licence to drive the vehicle on public road by the competent authority under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also submitted that the driver of the vehicle cannot be said to be a person declared disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of his disqualification, therefore, the Tribunal has committed serious error of law in exonerating the Insurance Company from liability of award amount. Learned Counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Laxminarain vs. Smt. Sona Devi & Anr. , reported in 2003 (3) 1034 (sic), wherein the word "duly licensed and effective licence" has been considered in detail. Learned Counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Karnataka High Court delivered in the case of K. G. Srinivasamurthy vs. Habib Khathun & Ors. , reported in 2002 ACJ 557 and the Full Bench judgment of the Kerala High Court delivered in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Paulose reported in 2004 ACJ 457 and recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. , reported in AIR 2004 SCW 663. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Oriental Insurance Company vehemently submitted that the provision of Section 149 deals with the matter relating to the third party claim. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh & Ors. (supra), clearly held that the condition incorporated in the policy can be given effect when the matter is in between the insured and insurer and in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the dispute with respect to the third party claim are not only the matter, which can be adjudicated, but the dispute between the insured and insurer are also required to be adjudicated in the same proceedings by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It is also submitted that the word `duly licensed and effective licence' as used in Section 149 (2) and Section 3 of the Act of 1988 were also considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Swaran Singh's case (supra), and in view of the above, the Tribunal was right in exonerating the respondent-insurance company from the claim liability because even if Insurance Company is liable to pay award amount to third party, still if there is breach of condition by the insured, the Insurance Company can recover the said award amount from the insured in this very accident.
(3.) I considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. It is clear from the Sub-clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 149 that the insurance company can claim exoneration from the liability in case there has been breach of specified condition of the policy, being one of the conditions referred in Sub-clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 149. The words `being one of the following conditions' in Sub-clause (a) of Sub- section (2) of Section 149 have their, own importance because they make the defence of the Insurance Company limited. The words have been used in Sub-clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 149 clearly reveal that the Insurance Company can claim exoneration of its liability when the vehicle is driven by a driver who is not duly licensed. The word `duly licensed' has been used despite the fact that in Sub-section (1) of Section 3, the word has been used `effective driving licence', which provides that no one shall drive a motor vehicle on any public place unless he holds an `effective' driving licence. Therefore, a plain reading of Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 makes it clear that for driving a vehicle on public road, one is required to have `effective driving licence'. In case one drives the motor vehicle without having `effective' driving licence, then he can be punished under the various provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act. But inspite of having words `effective' driving licence in Section 3 of the Act of 1988, the words `duly licensed' have been used in Section 149 (2) (ii ). The words `duly licensed' as used in Section 149 (2) (ii) are read with rest of the same provision of Section 149 (2) (ii) it appears that different words have been used in the same Act purposefully. Second part of Section 149 (2) (ii) excludes the liability of drivers, who have been held `disqualified from holding or obtaining driving licence during the period of disqualification'. Therefore, the complete reading of Section 149 (2) (ii) makes it clear that a person who is duly licensed to drive the motor vehicle on road (may not holding `effective' driving licence and who has not incurred disqualification for holding driving licence within that period of not having effective driving licence) caused accident while driving a motor vehicle, his liability is the insurer on satisfying other conditions. The term `duly licensed' denotes who has been given licence any time before. Not duly licensed means, who has never been given licence to drive vehicle. A person who got the licence once and was disqualified for holding or obtaining licence for any particular period then that person though is a duly licence person (as he had a licence to drive) but by operation of that disqualification, the insurers have been permitted to avoid any liability of that period only by taking help of Section 149 (2) (ii) so far as insured is concerned. ;