Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief J. (Oral) - This appeal is directed against the award, dated 29th November, 2008, made by the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal, Una, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ""the Tribunal"") in M.A.C. Petition No. 21 of 2006, titled Suman Bala and
others v. Naresh Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,80,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing
of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 5 herein and the insurer-appellant herein came
to be saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as the ""impugned award"").
2. The claimants, insured-owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality so far it relates to
them.
3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that driver Naresh Kumar was not having valid and effective driving licence to
drive Heavy Transport Vehicle, for short �HTV�/truck/offending vehicle, thus, the owner has committed wilful breach.
4. The owner of the truck is Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board and in case, it has to appoint a driver to drive HTV/truck/offending vehicle,
it has to ascertain during the selection process - whether the driver is having valid and effective driving licence to drive HTV/truck-offending
vehicle.
5. Admittedly, the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive HTV/truck/offending vehicle. Thus, it cannot lie in the mouth of
the learned Counsel for respondent No. 7-owner that the owner has not committed any wilful breach.
6. Having said so, it is held that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle.
7. Keeping in view the facts of the case read with the pleadings and the law laid down by the Apex Court, owner-respondent No. 7 has
committed wilful breach.
8. Viewed thus, the insurer has to satisfy the impugned award, at the first instance, with right of recovery, from the insured.
9. The Registry is directed to release the entire amount deposited by the insurer in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of conditions contained
in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing in their account.
10. Respondent No. 7 is directed to deposit the award amount either before the Registry or before the Tribunal, within eight weeks from today. In
default, the insurer is at liberty to lay a motion for recovery.
11. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above and the appeal is disposed of.
12. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal�s file.
