JUDGMENT This revision under section 115 of CPC is directed against the order dated 19.12.2001 passed by MACT, Umariya in MCC No. 63/99. Petitioner Anjani Prasad Tiwari is the registered owner of Jeep No. MP 18 - 2567. The said jeep has been insured by the respondent, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. On 24.7.1999, respondent Raju was driving the jeep and in an accident claimant/respondent Smt. Gayatri Gupta sustained injuries. Therefore, she filed an application under section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation. The application aforesaid has been resisted by the petitioner stating inter alia that he left his jeep in the garage for repairing and on the same day at about 4.30 p.m. respondent No.2 Raju Prasad Dubey, who used to work as a mechanic in the garage, took the jeep for trial and carried some passengers. The Tribunal below vide impugned award dated 19.12.2001 held that respondent, the New India Insurance Co. Ltd., is not liable to pay the compensation as the driver of the jeep was not holding a valid licence while driving the jeep on 24.7.1999 and that the jeep being insured for personal use, passengers ought not to have been carried. Accordingly, exonerating respondent/ the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. directed the petitioner and respondent Raju Prasad Dubey to pay Rs. 4,000/- towards compensation to the claimant/respondent Smt. Gayatri Gupta. It is contended that the jeep aforesaid was insured with respondent-the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. respondent-the Insurance Company should not have been exonerated in respect of liability to 3rd party. The driver was having a valid licence and without permission of the petitioner was carrying passengers. The Tribunal below in para 17 of the impugned award held that there had been a valid policy in favour of petitioner Anjani Prasad Tiwari who is registered owner of Jeep MP 18 - 2567. Since the driver was having a licence to drive the private vehicle and was carrying passengers, this being the breach of the policy, the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability against the 3rd party. The Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and others 2003 (1) BLJ 145 = AIR 2003 SC 1292 held as under: "The Insurance company cannot avoid its liability towards third· party on ground that the licence of the driver of the vehicle was a fake licence. The Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and others 2003 (1) BLJ 145 = AIR 2003 SC 1292 held as under: "The Insurance company cannot avoid its liability towards third· party on ground that the licence of the driver of the vehicle was a fake licence. In order to avoid liability under S. 149 (2) (a) (ii) it must be shown that there is a 'breach' on part of the insured. To hold otherwise would lead to absurd results. Suppose a vehicle is stolen, whilst it is being driven by the thief, there is an accident. The thief is caught and it is ascertained that he had no licence. Can the Insurance Company disown liability? The answer has to be an emphatic 'No'. To hold otherwise would be to negate the very purpose of compulsory insurance. The injured or relatives of person killed in the accident may find that the decree obtained by them is only a paper decree as the owner is a man of straw. The owner himself would be an innocent sufferer. It is for this reason that the Legislature, in its wisdom, has made insurance, at least third party insurance, compulsory. The aim and purpose being that an insurance Company would be available to'" pay. The business of the company is to insurance. In all businesses there is an element of risk. All persons carrying on business must take risks associated with that business. Thus it is equitable that the business which is run for making profits also bears the risk associated with it. At the same time innocent parties must not be made to suffer or loss. These provisions meet these requirements. Further, in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Shimla Devi and others, 2004 ACJ 77 while dealing with the liability of Insurance Company in respect of 3rd party, it has been held that the Insurance Co. is liable to pay awarded amount to the claimant and in the event of breach of policy upon making such payment, the Insurance Company can recover from the insured. Accordingly, the Tribunal below wrongly exonerated the respondent Insurance Company from liability against the 3rd party. Consequently, revision succeeds and is allowed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount of award to the claimant/respondent Smt. Gayatri Gupta. No order as to costs.