JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been preferred by appellant-National Insurance Company aggrieved by award dated 12.06.2003 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ajmer, in MAC Case No.808/99, by which the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to claimant-respondent. 2. Shri Praveen Jain, learned counsel for appellant has argued that claimant-respondent no.1 in present case sustained 20% permanent disability in a road accident involving a vehicle that was insured with the appellant insurance company. Learned counsel has argued that finding on Issue no.4 recorded by learned Tribunal is absolutely perverse and same is liable to be set aside. The driver of offending vehicle was holding driving license for the period from 19.04.1993 to 18.04.1996 and there was no renewal of it thereafter till the date of accident i.e. 27.12.1998. The said license was subsequently renewed only on 13.04.1999, the validity of which was upto 12.04.2002. It is thus clear that as on the date of the accident, the driver was not holding any valid and effective driving license within the meaning of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It was a clear case of violation of conditions of the insurance policy. Learned counsel in support of his case, has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Gian Chand and others - (1997) 7 SCC 558 and National Insurance Company Limited v. Kusum Rai and Others - 2006. (4) SCC 450 . 3. Learned counsel for appellant, in support of his arguments, has also relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in Iswar Chandra and others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others - 2007 (2) T.A.C. 393 (SC) , Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others - MACD 2008 (SC) 351 , New India Assurance Company Limited v. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal - AIR 2009 SC 2987 , New India Assurance Company Limited v. Kusum and others - II (2010) ACC 518 (SC) , and National Insurance Company Limited v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and Others - AIR 2009 SC 208 . 4. 4. It was also argued that while recording a finding on the relevant issue, learned Tribunal has held that Insurance company shall have to make payment of compensation to the claimant but it could recover the same from the owner but in the operating part of the award, such direction has not been incorporated, owing to which the appellant company had to approach this court by filing present appeal. It is therefore prayed that the appeal be allowed. 5. Per contra, Shri Reasham Bhargava, learned counsel for claimant-respondent no.1 Ratan Singh, has opposed the appeal and argued that burden of proving whether or not the driver was having valid driving license on the relevant date, was on the Insurance company. Mere failure of the claimant to produce driving license in the court cannot absolve the Insurance company of its burden to prove that person driving the offending vehicle had no valid license. In support of this argument, learned counsel has relied on the judgment in Narcinva V. Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio - (1985) 2 SCC 574 . It as argued that unless the Insurance company proves that the breach of policy was caused by the owner or that the owner was aware about the causing of the breach, such defence would not be available to the Insurance company. 6. Learned counsel, in support of his argument, has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Skandia Insurance Company v. Kokilaben - (1987) 2 SCC 654 , Kashi Ram Yadav and Another v. Oriental F&G Insurance - (1989) 4 SCC 128 and Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy - (1996) 5 SCC 21 . 7. Learned counsel has also relied on the judgment of this court in Lehri Bai and Others v. Meera Kanwar - 2005 (5) WLC 157 , and argued that a coordinate bench of this court in that case held that if there was no specific defence that owner wilfully engaged a driver with expired licence and that there was no evidence that owner was responsible for non-renewal, the Insurance company could not be exempted of its liability. 8. Learned counsel further argued that it is only when the breach of policy is of such a nature which contributed towards occurrence/causing of the accident that the Insurance company can avail the defence about such breach. 8. Learned counsel further argued that it is only when the breach of policy is of such a nature which contributed towards occurrence/causing of the accident that the Insurance company can avail the defence about such breach. In support of his argument, learned counsel has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in B.V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Company - (1996) 4 SCC 647 . 9. It was also argued that if the driving license of the driver of offending vehicle had expired and it was subsequently renewed after the accident, the Insurance company is not exempted of the liability to third party. Learned counsel, in support of this argument, relied on the judgment of the Karnataka in OIC v. Nanjamma - 2005 ACJ 1534 . 10. Learned counsel also cited judgments of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Hira Tripathi and Others - 2002 ACJ 1400 , that of division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kalyan Singh and Another v. Sadarani and Others - 2001 ACJ 1758 , and judgment of Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in OIC v. Mohd. Sab Aliah - 2000 ACJ 1223 and argued that in cases where driving licence has lapsed and is renewed later on, then such status during inter/transitory period does not disqualify the driver to hold the licence in terms of Sections 19, 20, 130, 134 and 185 of the Act. Until and unless the insurer proves that the driver became disqualified to hold a licence, the liability remains upon the insurer. 11. I have given my anxious and thoughtful consideration to rival submissions and perused the material on record. 12. In my considered opinion, the judgments on which learned counsel for the respondent has relied, have to be considered in the light of recent approach of the law as reflected from subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court. 13. The Supreme Court in Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others - MACD 2008 (SC) 351 , was dealing with a case wherein the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving licence from 11.02.1990 to 10.02.1993 and again from 07.02.1996 to 07.02.1999; but the driver did not possess any licence during 11.02.1993 to 06.02.1996. The Supreme Court in Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others - MACD 2008 (SC) 351 , was dealing with a case wherein the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid driving licence from 11.02.1990 to 10.02.1993 and again from 07.02.1996 to 07.02.1999; but the driver did not possess any licence during 11.02.1993 to 06.02.1996. Accident took place on 27.01.1996 and the licence was renewed after accident only on and from 07.02.1996 and not within thirty days from the expiry thereof, which is permissible under the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It was held that renewal of licence would not become effective from retrospective date but would become effective only from the date of renewal. It was thus held to be a breach of contract of insurance and the insurer was held not liable to indemnify the insured. 14. In National insurance Company Limited v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and Others - AIR 2009 SC 208 also the same view was expressed by the Supreme Court and the insurance company was exonerated of liability. 15. In New India Assurance Company Limited v. Kusum & Others, supra , the driver of offending bus was possessing an invalid driving licence. The Supreme Court held that primary liability to pay compensation is of driver and owner of the bus. In terms of Motor Vehicles Act, an owner of a vehicle is legally obliged to get the vehicle insured. Owner has a duty to see that vehicle is driven by a person having a valid driving licence. Instead and in place of insurer, owner of vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. It would be travesty of justice, if insurance company is directed to pay amount and then face immense difficulties in executing a decree. 16. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Kaushalaya Devi and Others - 2008 ACJ 2144 , the insurance company sought to avoid its liability on the ground that driver had no valid and effective licence to drive the offending truck. The Tribunal held that insurance company failed to prove its contention. The High court found that driver had licence to drive light transport vehicle and the owner could not have checked or verified the licence for driving a heavy goods vehicle before handing over the vehicle to him. The Tribunal held that insurance company failed to prove its contention. The High court found that driver had licence to drive light transport vehicle and the owner could not have checked or verified the licence for driving a heavy goods vehicle before handing over the vehicle to him. Owner did not step into the witness box to state anything. The Supreme Court held that High Court was justified in holding that insurance company is not liable but owner alone is liable to make payment of compensation. 17. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Angad Kol and Others - 2009 ACJ 1411 , the insurance company sought to avoid its liability on the ground that driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. Driver had licence to driver light motor vehicle whereas he was driving a goods transport vehicle. Licence to the driver was granted for 20 years and therefore a presumption was held to have arisen that it was meant for the purpose of a vehicle other than a transport vehicle. Had the licence been granted for transport vehicle, the tenure thereof could not have exceeded three years. The Supreme Court held that driver had no valid and effective license and insurance company was held not liable to make payment of compensation. 18. In New India Assurance Company Limited v. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal - AIR 2009 SC 2987 , also the driving licence of deceased driver had expired four months prior to the date of accident. Claimant did not claim that driver had applied for renewal of licence within thirty days as per Section 15(1). Since deceased had no valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, the insurer was held not liable to indemnify owner for loss. 19. A similar view was expressed by the Supreme Court in Iswar Chandra and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others - 2007 (2) T.A.C. 393 (S.C.) , wherein the driving licence of tractor driver expired on 27.08.1994 and the driver did not posses any valid driving licence on the date of accident. Accident took place on 28.04.1995. Application for renewal of licence was also not filed within thirty days from the date of expiry. The insurance company was held not liable to reimburse amount of compensation payable by owner even if driving licence was later renewed. 20. Accident took place on 28.04.1995. Application for renewal of licence was also not filed within thirty days from the date of expiry. The insurance company was held not liable to reimburse amount of compensation payable by owner even if driving licence was later renewed. 20. In view of all the afore-noted judicial pronouncements of the judgments, which are directly on the point, the judgment of this court in Lehri Bai and Others v. Meera Kanwar, supra , cannot be said to be a good law. 21. In the result, this appeal succeeds. The appellant insurance company is exonerated of its liability. It is held that the appellant insurance company would not be liable to indemnify the owner for payment of compensation to the claimant.The appeal is accordingly allowed.Appeal Allowed. *******