Judgment :- 1. The National Insurance Company is the Appellant. In an accident, which occurred on 04.06.2006, the husband of the first Respondent, sustained injuries and despite intensive treatment, died in the Hospital on 07.06.2006. A case in Cr. No.403 of 2006 was initially registered under Sections 279 and 337, IPC and the same was subsequently altered into Sections 279 and 304-A, IPC, against the driver of the vehicle owned by the Second Respondent, at the time of accident, her husband owned a Beef Pakkoda Stall and earned Rs.250/- per day. 2. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte and with the leave of the Court, the Appellant-Insurance Company disputed the manner of the accident and contended inter alia that the driver of the vehicle insured with them was not responsible for the accident. They also disputed the liability on the ground that the driver of the vehicle insured with them did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive a Mini Door Auto, bearing Registration No.TN-25-F-0898, belonging to the Second Respondent. Without prejudice to the above, they also disputed the age, avocation, income and the quantum of compensation claimed under different heads. 3. However, the Tribunal, on evaluation of pleadings and evidence, found that the driver of the vehicle owned by the Second Respondent, insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company, was responsible for the accident. Following the decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kanakkammal and Others, 2008 (1) TN MAC 47; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nessaria and others, 2008 (1) TN MAC 200 (SC), National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 and United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Budhiya Bai and others, 2008 ACJ 17 , the Tribunal held that the Appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation and quantified the compensation at Rs.2,55,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim. 4. Questioning the liability to pay compensation. Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, took this Court through the oral and documentary evidence, let in by the Company to show that the driver of the Mini Door Auto bearing Registration No.TN-25-F-0898, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive that particular type of vehicle and therefore, the Company cannot be mulcted with the liability to pay compensation. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant-Transport Corporation further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to consider the oral evidence of RW.1, Investigating Officer of the Appellant-Insurance Company, RW.2, Junior Assistant of the Office of the Motor Vehicle’s Inspector, Arani, wherein, they have categorically deposed that the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-25-F-0898, did not possess a valid and effective licence to drive the Mini Door Autorickshaw. He also submitted that the Claims Tribunal has erred in determining the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.16,000/- and applied higher multiplier of ‘15’ for computing the dependency compensation. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. Section 149(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows: “(4) Where a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 147 to the person by whom a policy has been effected, so much of the policy as purports to restrict the insurance of the persons insured thereby by reference to any condition other than those in Clause (b) of subsection (2) shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147, be of no effect: Provided that any sum paid by the insurer in or towards the discharge of any liability of any person which is covered by the policy by virtue only of this sub-section shall be recoverable by the Insurer from that person.” 7. In Lal Chand v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2006 ACJ 2161, the driving licence of driver of the offending truck was found not issued by Licensing Authority. The owner claimed to have seen and examined the driving licence produced by the driver, took his driving test and found that the driver was competent to drive and appointed him. The driver caused the accident, which gave raise to a Claim Petition. The Claims Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and that the owner had not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and therefore, held that the Insurance Company was liable to make the payment of compensation to the claimants. The Claims Tribunal held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and that the owner had not committed any breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and therefore, held that the Insurance Company was liable to make the payment of compensation to the claimants. Being aggrieved by the same, the Company filed an appeal and the High Court has modified the order passed by the Tribunal and directed that the Insurance Company to pay and then recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle, as per law laid down by the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamala, 2001 ACJ 843 (SC). The High Court also held that the Appellant had contravened the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as the driving licence was not issued by the licencing Authority, Hyderabad. The Insurance Company has filed an Application under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act for recovery of the amount paid as compensation to the claimants. The Appellant therein filed a reply to the Application, in which, he averred that the Application for recovery of the compensation paid to the claimants by the Insurance Company is not maintainable as the rights of the parties have not been determined by the Civil Court. However, the Tribunal held that the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the money from the Appellant therein through an Execution Application and ordered to issue a certificate of recovery of the amount under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act and directed, the same be sent to the District Collector. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle moved the Supreme Court. Having regard to the observations made at sub-para (iii) of para 102 in Swaran Singh’s case, the Supreme Court in Lal Chand’s case, at paragraph 11, held that the Insurance Company has to prove that the insured, viz., the owner of the vehicle, was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the conditions of the policy regarding the use of vehicle, by a duly licenced driver or one who was disqualified to drive at the relevant point of time. On the facts of the case, the Supreme Court found that the owner of the vehicle had satisfied himself that the driver had a driving licence at the time of accident and accordingly, absolved him from the liability. 8. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta Bhat, 2008 (1) TN MAC 316 (SC) : 2008 ACJ 1498 , a passenger traveling in a three wheeler, died, when the vehicle was hit by a truck. The Insurance Company raised a defence that the driving licence possessed by the driver of the truck was fake. The officials of the concerned Licencing Authority was summoned, but no one turned out. The Insurance Company brought on record, evidence to the effect that on an investigation made by its own investigator, it was found that no licence in the name of the driver. The Tribunal found that the Insurance Company has failed to lead evidence in support of its assertion and accordingly, fastened the liability. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company was also dismissed by the High Court. The Apex Court held that even assuming that the licence of the driver was fake, the Insurance Company is liable to make payment to the third party and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 9. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another, 2008 (2) TN MAC 201 (SC) : 2008 ACJ 2161 , the driver of offending vehicle had licence to drive a three-wheeler, which was not meant to be used to drive a transport vehicle, but he was driving a goods carrying public carrier, an Autorickshaw Delivery Van and caused the accident. The Apex Court, in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and after considering a catena of decisions, directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award in favour of the claimants and then to recover the same from the claimant. 10. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sivammal, 2006 ACJ 1081 , I had an occasion to consider a case, as to whether the Insurance Company can be fastened with the liability to pay compensation to the legal representatives of a passenger and four other passengers, who sustained injuries, when the driver did not possess a valid licence to drive an Autorickshaw, a public transport vehicle, for which, a specified licence was required. At the time of accident, the driver had a licence to drive a light motor vehicle. In the above reported case, it was not a case of the owner that he verified the genuineness of the licence and satisfied as to the suitability to drive an Autorickshaw. Per contra, by placing the driving licence and adducing oral evidence through the Regional Transport Officer, the Appellant- Insurance Company proved that the driver did not have the requisite type of licence to drive Autorickshaw and therefore, considering the catena of decisions and on assessment of evidence, I had taken a view that, “owner of the vehicle has not taken adequate care and caution and let his vehicle in control of a person, who does not possess the requisite type of licence. In such circumstances, on evidence, the breach of conditions of the policy could be attributed to the insured.” Therefore, the Insurance Company was exonerated from payment of compensation to the victims. 11. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol, 2009 (1) TN MAC 242(SC) :, heirs and legal representatives of one Genda Bai, who died in an accident, which took place on 310. 2004, claimed compensation, contending inter alia that her death was caused due to the injuries, when she was knocked down by a Mini Door Auto. Disputing the liability to pay compensation, the Appellant- Insurance Company raised a plea that the driver did not possess a valid and effective licence. However, the Tribunal, fastened the liability on the Insurance Company and quantified the compensation at Rs.1,83,000/-. The claimants sought for enhancement. The Company filed a Cross-Objection. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court enhanced the compensation and dismissed the Cross-Objection. Testing the correctness of the award on the ground that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, in view of the statutory provisions, the Company, went on appeal to the Supreme Court. The claimants sought for enhancement. The Company filed a Cross-Objection. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court enhanced the compensation and dismissed the Cross-Objection. Testing the correctness of the award on the ground that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, in view of the statutory provisions, the Company, went on appeal to the Supreme Court. After considering the statutory provisions and the need for a particular kind of licence, the Supreme Court, at Paragraph 19, held that, - “interest of justice would be subserved, if we, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution while directing the insurance company to deposit the balance amount before the Tribunal with liberty to the claimants to withdraw the same give right to the Appellant to recover the said amount from the owner and the driver of the vehicle.” Though the Supreme Court declared that the Appellant- Insurance Company cannot be statutorily mulcted with the liability to pay compensation to the injured or legal representatives of the deceased, if the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the required licence to operate the vehicle, depending upon the class of the vehicle, yet in the interest of justice, directed the Insurance Company to pay and recover. 12. It is useful to reproduce the relevant portion of the judgment in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal, 2008 (1) TN MAC 97 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 614 , extracted in Angad Kol’s case, “37. The argument of the Insurance Company is that at the time of accident, Ram Narain had no valid and effective licence to drive Tata-709. Indisputably, Ram Narain was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company, referring to various provisions of the Act submitted that if a person is having licence to drive light motor vehicle, he cannot drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do (Section 3). Clauses (14), (21), (28) and (47) of Section 2 make it clear that if a vehicle is “light motor vehicle”, but falls under the category of transport vehicle, the driving licence has to be duly endorsed under Section 3 of the Act. If it is not done, a person holding driving licence to ply light motor vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle. If it is not done, a person holding driving licence to ply light motor vehicle cannot ply transport vehicle. It is not in dispute that in the instant case, Ram Narain was having licence to drive light motor vehicle. The licence was not endorsed as required and hence, he could not have driven Tata-709 in absence of requisite endorsement and the Insurance Company could not be held liable. 38. We find considerable force in the submission of the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. We also find that the District Forum considered the question in its proper perspective and held that the vehicle driven by Ram Narain was covered by the category of transport vehicle under Clause (47) of Section 2 of the Act. Section 3, therefore, required the driver to have an endorsement which would entitle him to ply such vehicle. It is not even the case of the complainant that there was such endorsement and Ram Narain was allowed to ply transport vehicle. On the contrary, the case of the complainant was that it was Mohd. Julfikar who was driving the vehicle. To us, therefore, the District Forum was right in holding that Ram Narain could not have driven the vehicle in question.” 13. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni and another, 2009 (2) TN MAC 241 (SC) : 2009 (4) CTC 798 (SC) the Supreme Court considered an important issue as to whether, when the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation amount to the claimants, since there was no Insurance coverage on the date of accident and that when the High Court has directed the Company to pay compensation amount to the claimants, with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and whether Article 142 of the Constitution of India would permit the Court to create a liability, where there is none and whether the Court can yet compel the Company to pay compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 14. In The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Muralikrishnan, 2010 (3) MLJ 271 , The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Misra, considered a similar issue as to whether the Insurance Company can be enonerated of their liability to pay compensation, when the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. 14. In The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Muralikrishnan, 2010 (3) MLJ 271 , The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.K. Misra, considered a similar issue as to whether the Insurance Company can be enonerated of their liability to pay compensation, when the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. In that case, in support of their contention, the Appellant therein relied on a decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and others, 2008 (2) TN MAC 369 (SC) : 2008 (6) CTC 254 : 2008 ACJ 2860 . In the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court, the accident took place on 11.06.2004 and the driving licence was valid for a period between 212. 2002 to 212. 2003 and it was again renewed from 16.05.2005. The High Court, keeping in view of the fact that previously there was a valid driving licence and such licence was also renewed after the accident had taken place, fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. But on the Appeal, the Supreme Court observed that during the interregnum period, there being no driving licence and therefore, the Company was not liable. 15. While testing the correctness of the impugned order of the Tribunal, in Muralikrishnan’s case (cited supra), a learned single Judge of this Court has observed as follows: “In these circumstances, I don’t think it can be said that the Supreme Court has laid down as an inexorable principle when there is no valid driving licence, the principle when there is no valid driving licence, the principle of Section 149(4) cannot be applied. On the other hand there are several decisions of the Supreme Court which categorically recognizes the underlying facility in section 149(4) by giving direction regarding pay and recovery when there was absence of valid driving licence.” 16. It is useful to re-produce the relevant portion of the judgment in National Insurance Co. On the other hand there are several decisions of the Supreme Court which categorically recognizes the underlying facility in section 149(4) by giving direction regarding pay and recovery when there was absence of valid driving licence.” 16. It is useful to re-produce the relevant portion of the judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, 2004 (1) TN MAC 104 (SC) : 2004 ACJ 1, extracted in Muralikrishnan’s case, “(x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the Insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by, relegating them to the remedy before, regular Court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims.” 17. In Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Veerasamy, 2010 (2) CTC 423 , after considering the decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nessaria and others, 2008 (1) TN MAC 200 (SC); National Insurance Co. In Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Veerasamy, 2010 (2) CTC 423 , after considering the decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nessaria and others, 2008 (1) TN MAC 200 (SC); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and others, 2008 (2) TN MAC 369 (SC) : 2008 (6) CTC 254 : 2008 ACJ 2860 ; New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Bommi, 2009 (2) TN MAC 86; (DB); New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamala, 2001 ACJ 843 (SC); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohammed Hussain, 2005 (4) CTC 127; and Oriental Insurance Co. v. Zaharulnisha, 2009 (1) TN MAC 419 : AIR 2001 SC 2218, yet another learned Judge of this Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice R. Subbiah), at Paragraph 10, held that, “10. A reading of the said judgments would show that if there is a fundamental breach in respect of the defence available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act, the Insurer can repudiate their liability to pay the compensation. So far as the non-possession of the driving licence is concerned, it is only a breach of policy condition and it cannot be said that it is not a breach of defence available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act and under such circumstances, I do not find any error in the observation made by the Tribunal in directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Though the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nessaria and others, 2008 (1) TN MAC 2008 (1) TN MAC 200 (SC) : 2008 (3) SCC 464 : AIR 2008 SC 1418 (1), was relied upon by the Appellant, in the said judgment, the question of “Payment and recovery” was not dealt with, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the Appellant.” 18. It is well known that till a reference is decided by a Larger Bench of Supreme Court, the law which is applicable to the case falling under Section 149(4), has to be decided following the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. It is well known that till a reference is decided by a Larger Bench of Supreme Court, the law which is applicable to the case falling under Section 149(4), has to be decided following the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Saravanan, 2009 (2) TN MAC 103 (DB) : 2009 (5) MLJ 715 , to maintain uniformity in claim cases, where there is no licence for the driver to drive the vehicle at the time of accident and the compensation has to be paid by the Insurance Company to the third party victim, who is not aware as to whether the driver of the offending vehicle had the requisite and valid driving licence to drive that particular kind of vehicle. Though the issue is now pending before the Supreme Court, yet it should be noted that this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Saravanan, 2009 (2) TN MAC 103 (DB) : 2009 (5) MLJ 715 , after considering a catena of decisions, held that the Insurer must pay so far as third party’s risk and recover the same from the Insurer, if so advised. 19. In the case on hand, copy of the driving licence, dated 26.09.2005 of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-25-F-0898, insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company has been produced before this Court. Perusal of the same, shows that the validity of the driving licence was between 26.09.2005 and 25.09.2005 and that he was authorized to drive a light motor vehicle through out India. As per the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nessaria and others, 2008 (1) TN MAC 200 (SC), having regard to the definition “light motor vehicle” as contained in Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, the Supreme Court held that if a driver had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, prior to the amendment issued in G.S.R. No.221(E), with effect from 28.03.2001, which includes a light goods vehicle as well. As the amendment made in the rules was held to have prospective operation, the Supreme Court observed that the driver ought to have applied for a licence so as to enable him to drive a vehicle of a different type. As the amendment made in the rules was held to have prospective operation, the Supreme Court observed that the driver ought to have applied for a licence so as to enable him to drive a vehicle of a different type. Therefore, on the facts of this case, it was held that the driver did not possess a valid and effective licence to drive a Mini Door Auto. 20. In the instant case, the driver had a licence to drive a light motor vehicle from 26.09.2005. The accident has occurred on 04.06.2006, when a Mini Door Auto bearing Registration No.TN-25-F-0898, belonging to the Second Respondent, dashed against a padestrian, a third party, who succumbed to injuries and died on 07.06.2006. As stated supra, the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nessaria and others, 2008 (1) TN MAC 200 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the amendment relating to categorization and type of the vehicle, has come into effect by the introduction of G.S.R. No.221(E) from 28.03.2001 and therefore, it is prospective in nature. In the case on hand, it is not disputed that the driver did not possess the driving licence, at the time of accident. In view of the binding effect of the Division Bench and to have uniformity in the decisions, relating to the cases, where non-possession of licence, fake licence, etc., is taken as the defence on behalf of the Appellant- Insurance Company, as held in Swaran Singh’s case and in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Saravanan, 2009 (2) TN MAC 103 (DB) : 2009 (5) MLJ 715 and considering the material on record, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the third party victim and then recover the same from the insured in the same proceedings before the Tribunal. 21. As regards the quantum of compensation is concerned, it is the case of the Respondents that prior to death, the deceased owned a Beef Pakkoda stall and earned Rs.250/- per day, but no proof has been filed. However, the Tribunal, having regard to the statement made in Ex.R1, Investigation Report of the Appellant-Insurance Company found that there is a clear admission of the Appellant- Insurance Company that the deceased was working as a labourer and fixed the monthly income, at Rs.2,400/-. There is no quarrel over the age of the deceased. However, the Tribunal, having regard to the statement made in Ex.R1, Investigation Report of the Appellant-Insurance Company found that there is a clear admission of the Appellant- Insurance Company that the deceased was working as a labourer and fixed the monthly income, at Rs.2,400/-. There is no quarrel over the age of the deceased. The first Respondent-wife was aged 25 years, at the time of the accident. The deceased was aged 45 years. There is no dispute over the same. The Supreme Court, time and again, has held that Second Schedule to Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, can be taken as guidance for computing the dependency compensation and there should be no exceptions. In the case on hand, the multiplier applicable to the age group of persons, between 40, but not exceeding 45 years, is ‘15’. Considering the age of the first Respondent-wife, aged 25 years, the application of ‘15’ multiplier for computing the dependency compensation, cannot be said to be manifestly illegal. 22. Apart from dependency compensation, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,000/-for Funeral Expenses and Rs.10,000/- for Loss of Love and Affection. The said sum of Rs.10,000/-can be adjusted against the loss of Consortium. Perusal of the judgment shows that though the husband of the first Respondent, sustained grievous injuries on 04.06.2000 at 10.00 p.m., and rushed to the Government Hospital, Polur and thereafter, taken to Government Hospital, Vellore, no award has been made for transportation. Needless to say that the Respondent would have incurred some expenses for transportation and other incidental expenses. For the loss of her husband at the age of 25, a compensation of Rs.2,55,000/-with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, cannot be said to be bonanza or benefit arising out of the accident. 23. In the result, excepting the reduction in the rate of interest, the quantum of compensation is confirmed. In view of the binding effect of the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Saravanan, 2009 (2) TN MAC 103 (DB) : 2009 (5) MLJ 715 , this Court is of the considered view that the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to a third party victim. In view of the binding effect of the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Saravanan, 2009 (2) TN MAC 103 (DB) : 2009 (5) MLJ 715 , this Court is of the considered view that the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to a third party victim. However, the award is modified to the effect that the Company would pay the entire compensation amount with proportionate interest at the rate of 7.5% from the date of claim with costs to the first Respondent and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, Second Respondent in this Appeal. 24. In this result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.