ivil Appeal No 2183 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 2531988 of the Allahabad High Court in FAFO No 951 of 1987
NDB Raju and N Ganapathy for the Appellants
MS Ganesh and Murlidhar for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by K JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
The question raised in this appeal relates to the liability of the owner of an insured vehicle to pay compensation for the accident caused by negligence of an unlicensed driver
The facts which are now found are these
A constable while returning home after performing his duties was knocked down by a tractor owned by appellant No 1 Kashiram Yadav
Appellant No 2 Raghuraj was then driv ing the tractor
He had no driving licence
The widow of the constable and her children claimed compensation from the appellants and the insurer
The owner resisted the claim contending inter alia that he had already sold the vehicle to a third party and that vehicle was driven by the licensed driver Gaya Prasad at the time of the accident
Both these facts were not established
The Tribunal held that Raghuraj Singh was driving the tractor and the accident took place due to his rash and negligent driving and not due to any fault on the part of the constable
Since Raghuraj Singh had no driving licence the Tribunal held that the 813 owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensa tion
Having reached that conclusion the Tribunal deter mined the amount of compensation payable to the claimants
A sum of Rs96000 was awarded with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum till realisation
This award of the Tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court
We are not concerned with the quantum of compensation determined by the Tribunal
That question has not been agitated before us
The only contention that was canvassed before us is as to the liability of the insurer to indemnify the owner to satisfy the judgment against him
Section 96 of the imposes duty on the insurer to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risks
Sub section 2 thereof provides exception to the liability of the insurer
Sub sec
2b of sec
96 provides that the insurer is not liable to satisfy the judgments against the persons insured if there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy
One of the conditions of the policy specified under clause ii is that the vehicle should not be driven by any person who is not duly licensed or by any person who has been disqualified from holding or obtaining driving licence during the period of disqualification
It is not in dispute that the certificate of insurance concerned in this case contains this condition
If therefore there is a breach of this condition the insurer will not be liable to indemnify the owner
Counsel for the appellants however submitted that insurer alone would be liable to pay the award amount even though the tractor was not driven by a licensed driver
In support of the contention he placed reliance on the deci sion of this Court in Skandia Insurance Co Ltd vs Kokila ben Chandravadan and Ors 1987 2 SCC 654
We do not think that that decision has any relevance to the present case
There the facts found were quite different
The vehicle concerned in that case was undisputedly entrusted to the driver who had a valid licence
In transit the driver stopped the vehicle and went to fetch some snacks from the opposite shop leaving the engine on
The ignition key was at the ignition lock and not in the cabin of the truck
The driver has asked the cleaner to take care of the truck
In fact the driver had left the truck in the care of the clean er
The cleaner meddled with the vehicle and caused the accident
The question arose whether the insured owner had committed a breach of the condition incorporated in the certificate of insurance since the cleaner operated the vehicle on the fatal occasion without driving licence
This Court expressed the view that it is 814 only when the insured himself entrusted the vehicle to a person who does not hold a driving licence he could be said to have committed preach of the condition of the policy
It must be established by the Insurance Company that the breach is on the part of the insured
Unless the insured is at fault and is guilty of a breach of the condition the insur er cannot escape from the obligation to indemnify the in sured
It was also observed that when the insured has done everything within his power in as much as he has engaged the licensed driver and has placed the vehicle in his charge with the express or implied mandate to drive himself it cannot be said that the insured is guilty of any breach
We affirm and reiterate the statement of law laid down in the above case
We may also state that without the knowl edge of the insured if by driver s acts or omission others meddle with the vehicle and cause an accident the insurer would be liable to indemnify the insured
The insurer in such a case cannot take the defence of a breach of the condition in the certificate of insurance
But in the present case the onus of the insurer has been discharged from the evidence of the insured himself
The insured took a positive defence stating that he was not the owner of the vehicle since he had already sold the same to a third party
This has not been proved
Secondly he took a defence stating that the vehicle at the relevant time was driven by a licensed driver Gaya Prasad PW 2
This was proved to be falseThere is no other material even to indicate that the vehicle was entrusted to the licensed driver on the date of the fatal accident
With these distin guishing features in the present case we do not think that the ratio of the decision in Skandia Insurance Co Ltd s case could be called to aid the appellants
In the result the appeal fails and is dismissed
In the facts and circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs
GN Appeal dismissed


Summary:
Respondent No 1 made an application to the Central Government for permission to establish an undertaking for the manufacture of Ossein and Gelatine in the State of Rajasthan
The appellant Association made representations before the Central Government objecting to the grant of the said application inter alia on the ground that it would cripple the small scale business of its members who were already functioning far below capacity on account of short supply of crushed bones
The Central Government rejected the objections and granted the application of the Respondent under section 22 of the  by its order dated 2091988
Aggrieved by the said order appellant association has preferred this appeal under section 55 of the MRTP Act
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the Central Government has failed to pass a reasoned order and has not followed the principles of natural justice
Dismissing the appeal HELD 1
The order of the Government is a detailed and elaborate one
It sets out the contentions and deals with them seriatim
The point made that existing units were already functioning below capacity due to insufficient supply of crushed bones and that the entry of the Respondent No 1 into the arena would drive them out of business has not been overlooked
Only as against this the Government has considered to be more weighty the economic advantages in granting the application of Respondent No 1 arising out of the circumstances that they would be setting up the industry in a backward area that they had categorically undertaken to export at least 60 of their proposed pro 816 duction that since they would be producing their own hydro chloric acid the availability of such acid to others will not be affected and that the short supply of the raw mate rial crushed bones may not be a constraint for permitting the manufacture of value added products like Ossein and Gelatine
The order bears testimony to the fact that the pros and cons have been fully considered and a decision taken
It is not within the province of the Courts to ap praise the evidence or review the conclusion of the Govern ment
818G H 819A B Oramco Chemicals Pvt Ltd vs Gwalior Rayon Silk Manu facturing Weaving Company Ltd  Anr and Bombay Oil Industries vs Union of India   referred to
In the instant case requirements of natural justice have been fulfilled and no prejudice has been caused to the appellant
Of course the order has been passed by an officer different from the one who heard the parties
However the proceedings were not in the nature of formal judicial hear ings
They were in the nature of meetings and full minutes were recorded of all the points discussed at each meeting
The order itself summarises and deals with all the important objections
The delay in the passing of the order also does not vitiate the order in the absence of any suggestion that there has been a change of circumstances in the interregnum brought to the notice of the authorities or that the author ity passing the order has forgotten to deal with any partic ular aspect by reason of such delay
The contention that the application of Respondent No 1 had referred to bonemeal as the raw material used and this was later changed to crushed bones  is pointless because it is not disputed that all along the appellant was aware that the reference to bonemeal was incorrect and that Respondent No 1 was going to use crushed bones in the project
That some documents were produced at the hearing by Respondent No 1 which the appel lant could not deal with effectively is also without force as admittedly the appellant s representatives were shown those documents but they did not seek any time for consider ing them and countering their effect
Moreover the issue is one of grant of approval by the Government and not any particular officer statutorily designated
It is also per fectly clear on the records that the officer who passed the order has taken full note of all the objections put forward by the petitioners
819C H 820A D