[2025:JHHC:11551] -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 60 of 2024 Liberty General Insurance Limited, 3rd Floor, Industry House Shanti Bhawan, Bankmore, P.O. Dhanbad P.S. Bankmore District Dhanbad being represented through Shraddha Kinare, Associate Vice President & Corporate Legal Manager, having its Office at Unit No. 4, "E" Wing. Trade Link, 1st Floor, Kamala Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, P.O. & P.S Lower Parel, ( West), Lower Parel, Mumbai, 400013, Corporate Office At 10th Floor, Tower A, Peninsula Business Park, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, P.O. & P.S Lower Parel, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013. ..... … Appellant Versus 1. Nuni Wala Devi Wife of Late Arjun Mandal. 2. Labhu Mandalani Wife of Late Subal Mandal (mother of Late Arjun Mandal) 3. Amit Kumar Mandal Son of Late Arjun Mandal. 4. Sumit Kumar Mandal Son of Late Arjun Mandal Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are minors are being represented through their mother being the natural guardian as their next friend. All Permanent Residents of Village- Pargha, Kamar Tola, P.S. Baliapur, P.O. Pargha District- Dhanbad (Plaintiffs/Claimants Nos. 1 to 4 respectively). 5. Gopee Nath Singh, Son of Manoj Singh resident of Village Tetuliya, Ankduara, P.O. Ankduara, P.S. Kalubathan, District Dhanbad. (owner). ..... … Respondents -------- CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Lal, Advocate. For Resp. Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Sanjay Prasad, Advocate. ------ 08/ 16.04.2025 Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company and Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel [2025:JHHC:11551] -2- appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, who are claimants. 2. Notice upon respondent No. 5 has already been effected, however, nobody has put his appearance on his behalf. This matter was earlier adjourned on 05.03.2025 with a view to provide one more opportunity to the respondent No. 5, in spite of that appearance has not been made on his behalf, as such, this appeal is being heard in absence of respondent No. 5. 3. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 18.10.2023, passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 192 of 2021, by the learned Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, M.A.C.T., Dhanbad. 4. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant- insurance company submits that so far as this appeal is concerned, only ground is made of modifying the award with regard to recovery of the awarded amount from the owner of the motorcycle in question. He submits that Gopee Nath Singh, who was driving the another motorcycle was not having the proper driving license, in spite of that the learned tribunal has fasten the liability upon the appellant-insurance company, as such, the award may kindly be modified to the extent to pay and recover from the owner, who is respondent no. 5. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants submits that it is between the insurance company and the respondent No. 5 and claimants are required to be paid the awarded amount. 6. The learned tribunal has passed the award considering the argument of both the sides. 7. So far as the driving license is concerned, said aspect has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Swaran Singh & Ors., reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297, where in paras-42 to 44 and in para-50, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:- “42. We may also take note of the fact that whereas in Section 3 the words used are 'effective licence', it has been differently worded in Section 149(2) i.e. ' duly licensed'. If a person does not hold an effective licence as on the date of the accident, he may be [2025:JHHC:11551] -3- liable for prosecution in terms of Section 141 of the Act but Section 149 pertains to insurance as regard third party risks. 43. A provision of a statute which is penal in nature vis-`-vis a provision which is beneficent to a third party must be interpreted differently. It is also well known that the provisions contained in different expressions are ordinarily construed differently. 44. The words 'effective licence' used in Section 3, therefore, in our opinion cannot be imported for sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. We must also notice that the words 'duly licensed' used in sub-section (2) of Section 149 are used in past tense. 50. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, holding of a valid driving licence is one of the conditions of contract of insurance. Driving of a vehicle without a valid licence is an offence. However, the question herein is whether a third party involved in an accident is entitled to the amount of compensation granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal although the driver of the vehicle at the relevant time might not have a valid driving licence but would be entitled to recover the same from the owner or driver thereof.” 8. In view of the above, the stand taken by the appellant- insurance company herein is not proved before the learned court, as such, this court finds that there is no illegality in the award. As such, this appeal is dismissed. 9. The statutory amount, deposited before this court be transmitted back to the learned tribunal, which will be utilized in satisfying the award of the claimants. 10. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the learned tribunal forthwith. (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Amitesh/- [N.A.F.R.]