ORDER : Time taken for disposal of the claim petition by MACT Time taken for disposal of the appeal by the High Court Time taken for disposal of the appeal in this Court 2 years 6 months 1 year 1 month 3 months 24 days Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 12th August 2024 passed in FAO-3335-2024 (O&M) by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, which, in turn, was preferred against the order dated 31st October 2023 in MACP-155-2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sas Nagar. 3. The undisputed facts are that on 26th November 2019, the deceased, namely, Sajad Abdul Basit, aged 24 years, was travelling along with his friend on a motorcycle to college. Upon reaching Petrol Pump, Marnupur, a motorcycle bearing registration no. HP-10-A-4265 (hereinafter referred to as the “offending vehicle”), driven by Respondent No. 5 herein , Bhupinder Singh, in a rash and negligent manner coming from the wrong side, dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased. The deceased was initially taken for treatment to Civil Hospital, Kharar, and thereafter, shifted to PGI, Chandigarh, where he succumbed to the injuries suffered while undergoing treatment. 4. In connection with the same, FIR No.291, dated 28th December 2019, under Sections 279, 304-A, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, was registered against the driver (Respondent No.5) of the offending vehicle at Sadar Kharar Police Station. 5. The claimants, being legal representatives of the deceased, filed an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the Act'), seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. It was submitted therein that at the time of the incident, the deceased was earning Rs.50,000/- per month by providing tuition and was also pursuing MBA from Chandigarh University. 6. The Tribunal, vide its order, held the Appellant - Insurance Company and Respondent No.6, the owner, jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation amount of Rs.30,10,765/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased on a notional basis as Rs.12,000/- per month. 7. 6. The Tribunal, vide its order, held the Appellant - Insurance Company and Respondent No.6, the owner, jointly and severally liable to pay a compensation amount of Rs.30,10,765/- along with interest @ 9% per annum. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased on a notional basis as Rs.12,000/- per month. 7. Aggrieved thereof, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court on the ground that the Tribunal has incorrectly assessed the monthly income of the deceased and pertinently, that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount since the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid license at the time of the incident. The High Court, vide, the impugned order, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the findings of the Tribunal. 8. Dissatisfied, the Appellant - Insurance Company is now before us. The significant point of the challenge is that the Courts below did not take into consideration the fact that driver of the offending vehicle did not have an appropriate license to drive a motorcycle and only possessed a license to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (hereinafter ‘LMV’). 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 10. At the outset, we must advert to the statutory scheme of the Act, for a valid license. Section 2(10) defines a 'driving license' as a license issued by the competent authority authorising the holder to drive a vehicle of a specified class. Section 3 necessitates having a driving license and reads as follows: “3. Necessity for driving licence.— (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless 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 [Subs. by Act 54 of 1994, Section 3 for “a motor cab” (w.e.f. 14-11-1994).] [or motor cycle] 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 to do so. (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” 11. (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” 11. Section 10 reads as follows: Section 10: Form and contents of licences to drive.— (1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely— (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) [adapted vehicle]; (d) light motor vehicle; [(e) transport vehicle;] (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. 12. From a bare reading of the aforesaid provisions of the Act, it is evident that a person is authorised to drive only such class of vehicle for which they possess a valid license and, furthermore, two separate licenses were envisioned for drivers of motorcycles and LMVs. 13. In similar circumstances to the case at hand, this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha, (2008) 12 SCC 385 . , set aside the liability of the Insurance Company since the driver of the motorbike therein only possessed a license for driving a heavy motor vehicle and did not have an effective license to drive the motorcycle. 14. Adverting to the facts at hand, on a perusal of the evidence on record, it is not in dispute that the driver of the offending vehicle - Respondent No.5, only has a valid license for driving LMVs. It is also not in dispute that the accident was caused by Respondent No.5 while driving a motorcycle and not an LMV. Consequently, we find force in the submission of the Appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a valid license at the time of the incident, which is in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 15. Therefore, considering the above expositions of law and the statutory scheme, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 16. 15. Therefore, considering the above expositions of law and the statutory scheme, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 16. However, in the interest of justice, under the ‘pay and recover’ principle, as was done in Zaharulnisha (supra), we direct the Appellant - Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants, and thereafter, the same may be recovered from the owner of the offending vehicle - Respondent No.6. 17. The Civil Appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms. The impugned order dated 12th August 2024 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO-3335-2024 (O&M), which affirmed the order dated 31st October 2023 in MACP-155-2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sas Nagar, stands modified accordingly. Interest on the amount is to be paid as awarded by the Tribunal. 18. The amount be directly remitted into the bank account of the claimants. The particulars of the bank account are to be immediately supplied by the learned counsel for the claimants to the learned counsel for the Appellant - Insurance Company. The amount be remitted positively within a period of four weeks, thereafter. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.