JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.: - CM-8914-CII-2012 Despite sufficient opportunity, no reply has been filed by the respondents. Keeping in view the averments made in the application, the same is allowed. The delay of 19 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. FAO-2090-2012 1. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company assailing the impugned award dated 10.12.2011, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide which, respondent No.1 has been awarded a sum of Rs.81,600/- on account of the injuries suffered by him in a road accident. The Insurance Company alongwith the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle has been held liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 2. The only arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. He was having a licence which was valid for driving motorcycle, scooter, motor car, whereas, at that time he was driving auto rickshaw, which is a passenger carrying vehicle. In this regard a specific endorsement is required from the licencing authority. 3. Learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 could not be able to controvert this argument. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 5. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicle Act reads as under:- 3.Necessity for driving licence.- (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [ other than a motor cab hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 ] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” 6. The accident is not disputed. Claimant-respondent No.1 suffered multiple injuries and he has been awarded a sum of Rs.81,600/- as compensation by the learned Tribunal. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government.” 6. The accident is not disputed. Claimant-respondent No.1 suffered multiple injuries and he has been awarded a sum of Rs.81,600/- as compensation by the learned Tribunal. As per driving license Ex-R1, the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving license for driving motorcycle/ scooter and Motor car only, whereas, he was driving the three wheeler, which is LMV(Transport), for which no endorsement was entered in the driving license held by the driver. 7. Therefore it is held that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident and that there is violations of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 8. In view of the above discussion, the appellant Insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. three wheeler is absolved for the liability. The driver and the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. three wheeler are held liable to indemnify the award jointly and severally. The findings of the learned tribunal on issues No. 5 and 6 are accordingly modified. 9. However in view of the law laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma and others 2004 ACJ 2094., it is directed that at the first instance, the appellant-Insurance company will satisfy the award in favour of the claimant and thereafter, recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle three wheeler. 10. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed with the modification in the impugned award as indicated above. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————