( 1 ) BOTH the appeals were preferred by the oriental Insurance Company Ltd. , Guntur against the orders of the Motor Accident claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District judge, Guntur ( the tribunal for brevity) in o. P. Nos. 245 and 246 of 1992 respectively which arose out of the same accident. ( 2 ) THE claimants in O. P. No. 245 of 1992 are the parents of the deceased Nagalakshmi aged about 17 years and the claimants in o. P. No. 246 of 1992 are also the parents of the deceased Pujala Kiranmai aged about 16 years. Both the deceased were students. While both of them were proceeding on the road on the way to their college on 24-2-1992 the tractor-of the third respondent came from tractor and hit them resulting in their death. The claimants in both the petitions therefore claimed Rs. 97,000/- towards compensation for the death of each deceased. The tribunal through a common judgment awarded rs. 37,000/- to the claimants in each petition making the appellant-insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay rs. 25,000/- towards no fault liability compensation and the amount of rs. 12,000/- each is liable to be paid by the owner of the vehicle. ( 3 ) THE insurance company being aggrieved by the common order of the tribunal in both the O. Ps. preferred these appeals contending that the owner of the vehicle violated the conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, the question of the insurance company liable to pay the compensation does not arise. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that at the time of accident the son of the owner was driving the tractor without any driving licence and as the owner of the vehicle allowed his son to drive the vehicle knowing fully well the he had no driving licence, the insurance company cannot be made liable to indemnify the loss of the owner. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the third respondent-owner contended that under section 173 of the Act the appellant is supposed to deposit half of the decretal amount or Rs. 25,000/-, whichever is less, within the time prescribed under the Act and in the event of failure to deposit the amount, the appeal cannot be maintained. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the third respondent-owner contended that under section 173 of the Act the appellant is supposed to deposit half of the decretal amount or Rs. 25,000/-, whichever is less, within the time prescribed under the Act and in the event of failure to deposit the amount, the appeal cannot be maintained. The learned counsel further contended that the appellant did not obtain any permission from the tribunal under Section 170 of the Act and in the absence of such permission the appellant is not entitled to raise the pleas, which are not covered under Section 170 of the Act. ( 5 ) IN view of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company and the respondent-owner, the following points arise for consideration: (1) Whether the appeal is not maintainable under law? (2) Whether the insurance company failed to establish that the owner willfully violated the conditions of the policy? (3) Whether the appellant-insurance company is liable to pay any compensation, including no fault liability, on proving that there was no valid driving licence to the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident and that the said person drove the vehicle to the full knowledge of the owner of the vehicle who willfully allowed his son to drive the vehicle? point No. 1: ( 6 ) SECTION 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 ( the Act for brevity) reads as follows: 173. Appeals:- (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2), any person aggrieved by an awardof a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the high Court: provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty percent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court. Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees. ( 7 ) FROM a reading of the above section it is clear that the High Court is given power to entertain the appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation of 90 days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. As per the first proviso to Section 173 no appeal shall be entertained by the High Court unless the amount directed to be paid is deposited. Though Section 173 provides 90 days time for preferring the appeal, the second proviso enables the Court to condone the delay in preferring the appeal if sufficient cause is show, therefore, the deposit of the amount can also be made after the expiry of 90 days when the appeal is filed along with the delay condonation petition. ( 8 ) IN S. Venkata Subbaiah v. Kodavali chinnappa a single Bench of this High Court held that as per the first proviso of Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 unless half of the compensation awarded or Rs. 25,000/-, whichever is less, is deposited prior to the filing of the appeal, and the deposit certificate is enclosed to the Memorandum of Appeal, the appeal against the award of compensation is not maintainable. ( 9 ) IN New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Md. Makubur Rahman a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court held that deposit of the amount as required under Section 173 (1) is not obligatory at the time of filing the appeal. It would be sufficient if the deposit is made when appeal comes up for admission or consideration. The Division Bench held that the word "entertainment of appeal" means "admit for consideration". ( 10 ) IN Shiveshwar Prasad Narain Singh v. Ghurahu the Supreme Court held that the court while interpreting the statutes must take into consideration the legislative intendment and where two constructions are possible, one which advances the object of the legislation must be preferred to one which may retard or frustrate that object. ( 11 ) IN the case on hand, the order of the tribunal was pronounced on 19-7-1995. The copy application was made on 25-7-1995. Copy stamps were called for on 24-8-1995. ( 11 ) IN the case on hand, the order of the tribunal was pronounced on 19-7-1995. The copy application was made on 25-7-1995. Copy stamps were called for on 24-8-1995. The stamps were deposited on the same day and the copy was made ready on 26-8-1995. The appeal was presented for the first time before this Court on 28-9-1995 and it was numbered after complying all the objections on 9-12-1997. The learned counsel for the third respondent-owner without verifying the record pleaded that the appellant failed to make any deposit at the time of preferring the appeal, but the appellant filed certified copy of the entries of the ledger of the District court, Guntur indicating that half of the decretal amount in both the suits was deposited on 2-12-1995 and the entry to that effect was also made on 5-12-1995 and the amount was sent to the Bank to keep in fixed depositon2-12-1996. From the above material available on record, it can be concluded that after the return of the appeal the appellant deposited the amount and it was long before the High Court entertaining the appeal, therefore, I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and I hold that the appeals are maintainable under law. Point No. 2: ( 12 ) IN National Insurance Co. Ltd, v. Nicolletta Rohtagi the Supreme Court held that where the conditions precedent embodied in Section 170of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 are satisfied and the Accidents claims Tribunal passes an order permitting the insurer to avail of the grounds available to the person against whom the claim is made, the insurer can contest the claim on such grounds and in case of an adverse award can file an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation or the findings regarding negligence of the offending vehicle. The supreme Court further held that a mere presumption on the part of the insurer to file an appeal under Section 170 (3) would not entitle him to file an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation or the findings regarding negligence. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the third respondent contended that the insurance company failed to establish that the owner of the vehicle has willfully violated the conditions of policy. ( 13 ) THE learned counsel for the third respondent contended that the insurance company failed to establish that the owner of the vehicle has willfully violated the conditions of policy. But, as seen from the record, these appeals are preferred by the insurance company questioning its liability itself on the ground that there was breach of statutory condition of the policy committed by the insured. Under Section 149 (2) (a) of the Act the insurance company has every right to contest the matter when there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy including the condition of excluding the driving of the vehicle by a person who is not duly licenced, therefore, the appellant has every right to prefer the present appeals and it does not amount to non-compliance of the provisions of Section 170 of the Act. I therefore do not find any force in the contention of the third respondent on this ground also. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the appellant and against the third respondent, point No. 3: ( 14 ) THE tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by both parties held that the accident occurred due to the rashness and negligence of the driver of the tractor, but as the son of the owner drove the vehicle without possessing valid driving licence, it amounts tobreach of the conditions of policy. The tribunal, however, took a view that on the ground of breach of conditions of the policy the insurance company cannot escape its liability insofar as it relates to the claims under Section 140 of the Act, therefore, the appellant is liable to pay along with the owner the no fault liability compensation of rs, 15,000/- each with joint and several liability. ( 15 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant drew a distinction between the cases where there is breach of conditions of the policy and the case where the owner allowing his son to drive the tractor without valid driving licence. ( 15 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant drew a distinction between the cases where there is breach of conditions of the policy and the case where the owner allowing his son to drive the tractor without valid driving licence. In cases where the owner of the vehicle engages a driver who has got valid driving licence and if that driver allows any person who had no licence to drive the vehicle without the knowledge of the owner, the third parties claim against the insurance company cannot be denied and the insurance company will be given liberty to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle after paying the amount to the claimants. If the owner has sufficient knowledge that the person who was driving the vehicle was not having valid driving licence, it amounts to clear breach of conditions of the policy and in such an event the insurance company cannot be fastened with any liability to pay the compensation. ( 16 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy wherein the supreme Court held that Section 96 (2) (b) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 should not be interpreted in a technical manner. Sub section (2) of Section 96 only enables the insurance company to defend itself in respect of the liability to pay compensation on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (2), including that there has been a contravention of the condition excluding the vehicle being driven by any person who is not duly licenced. This bar on the face of it operates on the person insured. If the person who has got the vehicle insured has allowed the vehicle to be driven by a person who is not duly licensed then only that clause shall be attracted. In a case where the person who has got insured the vehicle with the insurance company, has appointed a duly licensed driver and if the accident takes place when the vehicle is being driven by a person not duly licensed on the basis of the authority of the driver duly authorized to drive the vehicle whether the insurance company in that event shall be absolved from its liability? The expression breach occurring in section 96 (2) (b) means infringement or violation of a promise or obligation. The expression breach occurring in section 96 (2) (b) means infringement or violation of a promise or obligation. As such the insurance company will have to establish that the insured was guilty of an infringement or violation of a promise. The insurer has also to satisfy the tribunal or the court that such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was willful. If the insured has taken all precautions by appointing a duly licensed driver to drive the vehicle in question and it has not been established that it was the insured who allowed the vehicle to be driven by the personnot duly licensed, the insurance company cannot repudiate its statutory liability under sub-section (1) of Section 96. ( 17 ) IN United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru the Supreme Court held that if the licence possessed by the driver is a fake one, the insurer would be continued to be liable unless he proves that the owner/insurer was aware of the fact and had still permitted that person to drive. Even in such cases also the insurer would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. ( 18 ) IN Branch Manager, New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Puppala Guruvaiah7 a single Bench of this High Court held that even though the driver of the offending vehicle has no valid licence, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation prescribed under no fault liability ( 19 ) THE above judgments of the Supreme court and this high Court make the position very clear that if the owner has knowledge that the vehicle was being driven by a person who has no driving licence, he cannot escape the liability, but the insurer cannot be made to indemnify the loss. ( 20 ) IN the case on hand, there is ample evidence to show that the son of the owner was not having driving licence as on the date of accident. He was caught red handed and taken to the police station and he was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 304-A ipc for causing the death of the deceased girls by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. He was caught red handed and taken to the police station and he was charge sheeted for the offence under Section 304-A ipc for causing the death of the deceased girls by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. In the light of the above circumstances and in the light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court I have no hesitation to hold that the owner had full knowledge that his son who was not having driving licence drove the tractor and caused the accident, therefore, this is a clear case of committing the breach of condition of insurance policy by the insured and the insurance company cannot be made liable not only for fault liability, but also for no fault liability. I therefore find sufficient force in the grounds of appeal and I am inclined to allow both the appeals. ( 21 ) IN the result, the appeals are allowed. The common order of the tribunal to the extent of making the appellant liable to indemnify the loss of the owner of the extent of Rs. 25,000/- in each case is set aside and the order of the tribunal remains undisturbed in all other respects. No costs.