JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. I have heard Mr. Bijan Ch. Das, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. Sanchita Roy and Mr. R.C. Paul, advocates, appearing on behalf of the insurer-appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents. 2. By the impugned award, dated 29.12.2001, passed in MAC case No. 20/2001, learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tinsukia, has awarded to the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 a sum of Rs. 1,42,000 (Rupees one lakh forty-two thousand), as compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the MV Act, 1988'), for the death of Girin Borgohain, who was killed, on 20.11.2000, in a motor vehicular accident involving vehicle No. AS-23 B 2521. 3. In the claim proceeding, it was contended by the insurer-appellant that the driver, who drove the said vehicle, did not have a valid driving license and as the vehicle was used in a public place without a driver having a valid driving license, there was a breach of the conditions of the relevant insurance policy and, in such circumstances, no liability could have been imposed on the insurer to pay compensation to the claimant. By the impugned award, while the learned Tribunal has granted the compensation, as indicated hereinbefore, it has not decided the question as to whether the vehicle was driven, at the relevant point of time, in breach of the conditions or the relevant insurance policy. Though it is true, as observed by the learned Tribunal, that the compensation may be made available to a victim of a vehicular accident even if the vehicle is driven in breach of the conditions of the insurance policy, the fact remains that the insurer has specifically raised the plea of the vehicle having been driven in breach of the conditions of the relevant insurance policy and, therefore, incumbent it was, on the part of the learned Tribunal, to give a clear finding as to whether or not the vehicle was driven by the driver, as alleged by the insurer, without having a valid driving license. The omission, on the part of the learned Tribunal, to give a clear finding in this regard, is a serious failure of exercise of jurisdiction. To the extent, therefore, that the impugned award does not determine as to whether the vehicle was driven in breach of the conditions of the insurance policy, the grievance of the insurer-appellant cannot be whisked away. To the extent, therefore, that the impugned award does not determine as to whether the vehicle was driven in breach of the conditions of the insurance policy, the grievance of the insurer-appellant cannot be whisked away. 4. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, this appeal is partly allowed. While the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the directions given to the insurer-appellant to pay the said compensation amount to the claimant-respondents aforementioned are not interfered with, the learned Tribunal is directed to hold such further enquiry, as may be necessary, and give a clear finding with regard to the said defence taken by the insurer-appellant. To the extent, as indicated hereinbefore, the impugned award shall stand set aside. If the learned Tribunal holds that the vehicle was driven, at the relevant point of time, in breach of the conditions of the relevant insurance policy, the insurer-appellant shall be at liberty to take recourse to such provisions of law, as may be applicable, for the purpose of recovering the amount, which the insurer-appellant has deposited with the learned Tribunal in terms of the directions of this court, passed in this appeal, on 9.8.2002. Should the learned Tribunal deem necessary, it may allow the parties concerned to adduce further or additional evidence in support of their respective cases. 5. With the above observations and directions this appeal shall stand disposed of. 6. Send back the LCR.