the authority of the owner the owner has no vicarious liability. In the light of the specific pleading taken up by the second respondent in the written statement we are at a loss to understand how the second respondent could rely on the said judgment. There is absolutely no case for the second respondent that the vehicle in question was being driven by Vijesh at the relevant point of time and that he was not acting under his authority. More over, the specific case discernible from the statements in the written statement is that Vijesh was not the driver engaged by him and in fact, it was driven by one Pradeepan. Again, as against the said pleading taken up in the written statement a perusal of Ext.B2(b) which is nothing but an application, would reveal that the second respondent has entered the name of one Pradeep Kumar as the driver. In such circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that Raveendran's case (supra) has no relevance in the facts and circumstances of this case. The contention taken up in the light of the decision in Swaran Singh's case (supra) also cannot be upheld. If the driver of the vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence the insurer is entitled to succeed in his defence and to avoid liability. True that, in the said decision it is held that, in such circumstances, it is also to be proved that the vehicle in question was consciously be allowed to drive by such a person by the owner of the vehicle. In this case, the specific case of the second respondent is that the vehicle in question was not
