Judgment :- These 11 revision petitions have been filed challenging the awards made by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal(Sub Court), Sivaganga in M.C.O.P. Nos.167 to 175 of 2003, 177 and 183 of 2003 in so far as the awards relate to the direction contained in clause 5 of the decree that the Insurance Company viz., the first respondent herein shall be entitled to recover the award amounts from the petitioner after paying the same in accordance with award to the claimants. 2. The brief facts of the case are follows: The petitioner is the registered owner of the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-31-N-0289. On 15.04.2003, the said vehicle involved in an accident in which admittedly 30 persons travelled in the said vehicle at the time of accident and sustained injuries. Out of the said 30 persons, 18 have come forward with the claim petitions in M.C.O.P. Nos.167 to 175 of 2003, 177 and 183 of 2003. Admittedly, the vehicle was covered by a insurance issued by the first respondent herein covering the relevant period. On full trial, the Tribunal was pleased to pass awards granting compensation with interest at 9% p.a. from the date of Award as detailed below: M.C.O.P. No. Compensation 167 of 2003 Rs.4000 168 of 2003 Rs.4000 169 of 2003 Rs.4000 170 of 2003 Rs.4000 171 of 2003 Rs.4000 172 of 2003 Rs.4000 173 of 2003 Rs.4000 174 of 2003 Rs.4000 175 of 2003 Rs.4000 177 of 2003 Rs.4000 183 of 2003 Rs.4000 3. During the trial a specific plea was taken by the first respondent Insurance Company that there was a clear violation of the policy condition and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants so as to indemnify the petitioner herein. According to one of the permit conditions, the vehicle can carry only 25 persons, whereas, at the time of accident it was carrying 30 persons and therefore it is a clear violation of the said permit condition. 4. Accepting the said contentions of the Insurance Company viz., the first respondent, the Tribunal has ordered compensation to be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants and thereafter right has been given to the Insurance Company to recover the said award amounts paid to the claimants from the owner viz., the petitioner herein. Challenging this part of the award, the above civil revision petitions have been filed. 5. Challenging this part of the award, the above civil revision petitions have been filed. 5. Heard both sides. 6. The short question which arises for consideration in all the Civil Revision Petitions is: "Whether mere violation of a policy condition in so far as it relates to the number of persons would entitle the Insurance Company to avoid its liability to pay compensation to the claimants?" 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in 2004 ACJ 140 (M. Anandavalliamma v.Aravind Eye Hospital). After elaborately discussing the various aspects relating to the violation of policy condition and having taken into account various judgments of the Honble Supreme Court, the Division Bench in paragraph 19 and 20 of its judgment has held as follows: Merely by lifting a person or two, it cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification. The breach of the condition of the policy was somewhat irregular, though, but not so fundamental in nature, so as to put an end to the contract, unless some factors existed, which, by themselves had gone to contribute to the causing of the accident. If the insurance company is able to prove that it is because of the presence of additional persons who were allowed to occupy the vehicle, the accident occurred, the position would be different. Consequently, we hold that even in cases where more passengers are taken with or without the knowledge or implied consent or even consent of the owner, unless the insurance company is able to prove that the accident took place only because of such act (taking more passengers) the insurance company will be liable to make good the loss/compensation. It has to be noted that in the case on hand, it is not the contention of the insurance company that the accident had occurred because two persons, over and above the prescribed limit in the policy, were travelling at the relevant time in the vehicle. At this juncture, we may refer to a passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, 1987 ACT 411 (SC), wherein the court observed as under: "Ordinarily it is not the concern of the legislature whether the owner of the vehicle insures his vehicle or not. At this juncture, we may refer to a passage from the judgment of the Supreme Court in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, 1987 ACT 411 (SC), wherein the court observed as under: "Ordinarily it is not the concern of the legislature whether the owner of the vehicle insures his vehicle or not. If the vehicle is not insured any legal liability arising on account of third party risk will have to be borne by the owner of the vehicle. Why then has the legislature insisted on a person using a motor vehicle in a public place to insure against third party risk by enacting section 94? Surely the obligation has not been imposed in order to promote the business of the insurers engaged in the business of automobile insurance. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the members of the community travelling in vehicles or using the roads from the risk attendant upon the user of motor vehicles on the roads. The law may provide for compensation to victims of the accidents who sustain injuries in the course of an automobile accident or compensation to the dependants of the victims in the case of a fatal accident. However, such protection would remain a protection on paper unless there is a guarantee that the compensation awarded by the courts would be recoverable from the persons held liable for the consequences of the accident. A court can only pass an award or a decree. It cannot ensure that such an award or decree results in the amount awarded being actually recovered, from the person held liable who may not have the resources. The exercise undertaken by the law courts would then be an exercise in futility. And the outcome of the legal proceedings which by the very nature of things involve the time cost and money cost invested from the scarce resources of the community would make a mockery of the insured victims, or dependants of the deceased victim of the accident, who themselves are obliged to incur not inconsiderable expenditure of time, money and energy in litigation." 20. Following the rulings stated supra, this court is inclined to hold that insurance company is certainly liable to compensate the claimants to the extent indicated above. Following the rulings stated supra, this court is inclined to hold that insurance company is certainly liable to compensate the claimants to the extent indicated above. In the case on hand also the in the counter affidavit filed in the lower Court, Insurance company had not pleaded that the accident was only because of taking more passengers and there is no eyewitness on the part of the Insurance Company to prove that the accident was only because of taking more number of persons than the permitted number of passengers. In view of the above decision of the Division Bench of this Honble Court, I have to necessarily hold that the first respondent Insurance Company is legally liable to indemnify the petitioner with reference to his liability to pay compensation to the petitioners/claimants. 8. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the first respondent that in this case totally 30 persons have sustained injuries and therefore at least for this violation it should be held that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the petitioner. On this question the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court in Branch Manager, National Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Murugesh & Others (1998 -1 L.W. 59), wherein in paragraph 16, this court has held as follows: "16. The alternative contention taken by learned counsel for the appellant is that under the Policy, the maximum liability that can be fastened on the Insurance Company can be only in respect of six persons. In this case, more than nine persons have filed their claim petitions, and the Insurance Company cannot be made liable for all these claimants when there is a basis for the liability under the terms of the policy, that alone can be the basis for the liability. A similar case came for consideration by a learned Judge of this Court (P.Sathasivam J)in C.R.P.Nos.643 to 647 and 667 to 672 of 1991 and C.M.A.211 of 1991 (National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Chellakkannu and others) in his order dated 1.10.1996, the learned Judge has held, following various other decisions, that the Insurance Company might be made liable only to the extent for which it has agreed to be made liable. In that case, the learned Judge held that the first seven claim petitioners will be entitled to claim the respective portions of compensation amount from the Insurance Company. In that case, the learned Judge held that the first seven claim petitioners will be entitled to claim the respective portions of compensation amount from the Insurance Company. Following the same procedure, I hold that the Insurance Company is made liable in so far as Claim Petition Nos.117,122,123,125,127 and 128 of 1989 are concerned. The claimants in those cases will be entitled to recover compensation amount from the Insurance Company also. That means, in those cases, the Insurance Company is also made liable for paying the compensation amount. Relying on the said decision, the learned counsel for the petitioner would content that in the case on hand though 30 persons have sustained injuries only 18 persons have claimed compensation, which is far less than the permissive number of passengers, viz. 25 as per the permit conditions. 9. I have given a careful consideration to the rival contentions at this point and I have also perused the judgment of this Court referred to above. This Court after having referred to various judgments has finally held that the Insurance Company should be made liable to the extent for which it agreed. In the instant case, the insurance company has agreed to indemnify the owner of the vehicle in respect of 25 passengers, whereas the claimants are only 18 in numbers. Therefore I have to necessarily hold that the Insurance Company viz., the first respondent herein is liable to indemnify the petitioner and as a result that part of the award in all these claim petitions giving right to the first respondent insurance company to recover the award amounts from the petitioner/owner of the vehicle after paying the same to the claimants stands set aside. 10. In the result, all these revision petitions are allowed. Considering the nature of the case, there is no order as to the costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.s also closed.