V. V. S. RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE third respondent in O. P. No. 680 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Vehicle accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-Second additional District Judge, Karimnagar is the appellant in the C. M. A. On 21-5-1993, one puppala Srinivas aged about 22 years was travelling in the lorry bearing No. AAH-2727. Incidentally he was working as cleaner-Cum-Driver of the lorry and allegedly drawing salary of Rs. 1,500. 00. The lorry met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving of the Driver, the fourth respondent herein (first respondent in the o. P.) resulting in death of three persons including Puppala Srinivas. His parents and his wife filed the O. P. claiming an amount of rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation for loss of dependency. The claim was opposed by the insurance Company, the appellant herein on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the Driver - Ramesh and on the ground that the Driver was not having valid licence when he was driving the vehicle and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable. ( 2 ) THE Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims tribunal framed the relevant issues and after considering the documentary evidence exs. A-1 to A-6 and B-1 to B-3, as well as the oral evidence adduced on behalf of claimants P. Ws. 1 and 2, and respondent - insurance Company R. Ws. 1 and 2, recorded a finding that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Driver. On the question whether Driver - Ramesh was having valid licence, issue No. 3, the tribunal recorded a finding in favour of the insurance Company holding that Driver - Ramesh was not having valid licence and that Ex. A-6, licence produced by the claimants is a fake one. On issues 2 and 4 dealing with quantum of compensation and liability for the same, the Tribunal determined the loss of dependency at rs. 80,000/- taking the multiplier of 16. An amount of Rs. 15,000. 00 was awarded towards loss of consortium to wife. While , awarding a total compensation of rs. 95,000/- in view of the finding on issue no. 3 that the Driver of the lorry was not having valid licence, restricted the liability of the Insurance Company to Rs. 25,000. 00 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act ). While , awarding a total compensation of rs. 95,000/- in view of the finding on issue no. 3 that the Driver of the lorry was not having valid licence, restricted the liability of the Insurance Company to Rs. 25,000. 00 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act ). The owner of the lorry was held liable to pay an amount of rs. 95,000/- with interest at 12%. ( 3 ) IN this appeal Sri K. Prem Chand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company raised only one ground. He submits that when the Insurance Company was held not liable under Ex. B-l policy as the vehicle was driven by unlicensed Driver fastening no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act is impermissible. ( 4 ) IT is no doubt true that as per Ex. B-l the policy covers any person including insured provided that the person driving the vehicle holds effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The learned Tribunal having regard to Exs. B-l and B-2 and A-6, came to the conclusion that Driver - Ramesh, first respondent in the O. P. , was not having valid driving licence issued by a competent authority. In that view of the matter, the tribunal rightly held that the owner of the lorry alone is responsible for paying compensation. That is not disputed. The tribunal ordered the Insurance Company to pay an amount of Rs. 25,000. 00 with proportionate costs and interest under section 140 of the Act and the rest of the compensation to be paid by the owner and the driver jointly. ( 5 ) THE point for consideration is whether the Tribunal is justified in directing the insurance Company to pay the amount under no fault liability. ( 6 ) A reading of Section 140 (1) and (2) of the Act shows that where a death resulted from accident arises out of the use of the motor vehicle, the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to pay compensation in a fixed sum of Rs. 50,000. 00. As per sub-section (3) of section 140 of the Act when no fault liability is claimed, it is not necessary for the claimant to plead and establish the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the owner or the owners of the vehicle. 50,000. 00. As per sub-section (3) of section 140 of the Act when no fault liability is claimed, it is not necessary for the claimant to plead and establish the wrongful act, neglect, or default of the owner or the owners of the vehicle. Section 140 of the Act in its entirety would only mean that whenever an accident occurs arising out of use of motor vehicle , the negligence of the driver, the negligence of the owner or default of the owner including allowing or permitting unlicensed Driver to drive the vehicle need not be pleaded and proved. The only stress is that accident must have occurred out of the use of the motor vehicle. The law is not concerned as to how the accident occurred and who was responsible to the accident. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant relied on the judgment of the Supreme court in Kashiram Yadav v. Oriental fire and general Insurance Company. The said case was concerned with actual liability of the owner on one hand and insured on the other. As the vehicle was driven by unlicensed Driver insurer is not liable under section 110-A of the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (which is Section 166 of the new Act ). Their Lordships also referred to Skandia insurance Company Ltd. v. Kokilaben chandravadan. ( 8 ) IN Kokilaben Chandravadan case the supreme Court after referring to conflicting views of various High Courts and a decision of this Court in Kilari Mammi v. Barium chemicals Ltd. held as under. . . . . . . . . . . . . . If the insured is not at all at fault and has not done anything he should not have done or is not amiss in any respect how can it be conscientiously posited that he has committed a breach? It is only when the insured himself places the vehicle in charge of a person who does not hold a driving licence, that it can be said that he is guilty of the breach of the promise that the vehicle will be driven by a licensed driver. It must be established by the insurance company that the breach was on the part of the insured and that it was the insured who was guilty of violating the promise or infringement of the contract. It must be established by the insurance company that the breach was on the part of the insured and that it was the insured who was guilty of violating the promise or infringement of the contract. Unless the insured is at fault and is guilty of a breach the insurer cannot escape from the obligation to indemnify the insured and successfully contend that he is exonerated having regard to the fact that the promisor (the insured) committed a breach of his promise. Not when some mishap occurs by some mischance. ( 9 ) THE decision in Kashiram Yadav case (supra) relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable. This aspect of the matter was considered by the supreme Court in Kaushnuma Begum v. New india Assurance Co. Ltd. wherein their lordships applied the principle of strict liability evolved in Rylands v. Fletcher and held as under. "no fault liability" envisaged in section 140 of the MV Act is distinguishable from the rule of strict liability. In the former, the compensation amount is fixed and is payable even if any one of the exceptions to the rule can be applied. It is a statutory liability created without which the claimant should not get any amount under that count. Compensation on account of accident arising from the use of motor vehicles can be claimed under the common law even without the aid of a statute. The provisions of the MV Act permit that compensation paid under "no fault liability" can be deducted from the final amount awarded by the Tribunal. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant has not pressed any other submission before this Court. ( 11 ) IN the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.