appellant-Insurance Company herein is somewhat narrowly worded, in that, it authorised the driving of the insured vehicle only by a person who holds a "valid driving license" at the time of the accident or had held a "permanent driving license (other than learner's license)" and who is not disqualified from holding or obtaining "such" a license. In view of the provisions of Section 96, Sub-section (3), however, once the certificate of insurance was issued by the appellant-Insurance Company in favour of the owner of the motor-cycle, so much of the statutory policy as purported to restrict the insurance cover by reference to any conditions which are not in accord with those set out in Section 96, Sub-section (2), Clause (b) are to be regarded as to be of no effect in respect of the liabilities required to be covered by the statutory policy and no breach of such a condition, if any, of the statutory policy can be validly pleaded by way of defence in the instant claim proceedings. Under such circumstances, the remedy, if any, of the appellantInsurance Company lies against the owner of the motorcycle in view of the proviso to Section 96, Sub-section (3).” 14. Therefore, in light of the said adjudication on the subject by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal on Issues No.3 and 5, are bad.
