no valid driving license ought not to have held that the Insurance Company failed to establish that the driver was not having a valid driving license. The Insurance Company specifically raised the plea that respondent No.6-owner of the vehicle, knowing fully well that the driver was only having a light motor vehicle driving license and was not possessing license to drive a heavy transport vehicle, allowed the driver to drive the lorry bearing No.AP 21 T 5724 and thereby, violated the terms and conditions of the policy. Before the learned Tribunal below, the owner of the offending vehicle and also the driver remained ex parte. The Insurance Company examined its official as R.W.1 and the Motor Vehicle Inspector, who inspected the vehicle after the occurrence of the accident, as R.W.2. Both of them have stated that the driver of the lorry, which was involved in the accident, was having only a light motor vehicle license and therefore, the owner of the said vehicle, while permitting the driver to drive the lorry, committed violation of stipulations of the policy. This is not the case where the Insurance Company did not take any steps to establish that the driver was having only a light motor vehicle license. In my view, since the Insurance Company adduced enough evidence, the learned Tribunal ought not to have fastened liability on the appellant/Insurance Company. Section 3 of the Act mandates that a driver of the vehicle must possess a valid driving license to drive a particular type of vehicle. In the instant case, since the driver was not possessing license to drive heavy goods transport vehicle, certainly, it can be said that the owner of the vehicle committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. However, in the instant case, the deceased is a third party. The appellant/ Insurance Company, in terms of Section 149 of the Act, is under a duty to pay the third parties, in the first instance despite the fact of it being exonerated from liability to pay the compensation. It may, however, recover the amount paid, from the
