Judgment : R. Subbiah, J. This appeal is filed by the insurance company as against the award dated 19. 2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Special Court for Essential Commodities Act Cases), Coimbatore, in M.C.O.P. No.989 of 2005, whereby the appellant insurance company was directed to pay the compensation amount to respondents 1 and 2/claimants and permitted to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 2. The facts, which are necessary to decide the issue involved in the appeal, are as follows: .(a) Respondents 1 and 2 herein are the wife and the minor daughter of the deceased M. Ramalingam. On 33. 2004, while the said Ramalingam was riding his motor cycle bearing registration No. TN-38-P-3596 from north to south in the Mettupalayam road, a lorry bearing registration No. TNE-315 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle and as a result of which, Ramalingam was dragged for over 25 feet and he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, respondents 1 and 2 made a claim for a sum of Rs. 32 lakhs as compensation for the death of the deceased Ramalingam as against the driver and the owner of the lorry in question as well as the insurance company. .(b) The said claim was resisted by the appellant insurance company on the ground that at the time of the accident, the driver of the lorry did not possess a valid licence. Therefore, there is a violation of the insurance policy conditions and the appellant insurance company cannot be made liable to pay the compensation. .(c) In order to prove the defence, on the side of the appellant insurance company, two witnesses were examined as R.Ws.1 and 2 and 7 documents were marked as Exhibits R-1 to R-7. By accepting the defence of the appellant insurance company, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the appellant insurance company has to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle i.e. the 5th respondent herein since there is a violation of the policy conditions. Aggrieved over the said finding, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company. 3. Aggrieved over the said finding, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, by relying upon the judgment in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwaia and Others (2008) 8 MLJ 206 : (2008) ACJ 2860, would contend that the insurance company cannot be made liable to pay the compensation when the appellant having proved that the driving licence had expired more than two years prior to the accident. Under such circumstances, the observation made by the insurance company to pay the amount and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle is not sustainable. Therefore, by setting aside the said finding, the insurance company has got to be exonerated from the liability and consequently, the owner of the vehicle has to be directed to pay the entire compensation. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1 and 2 respondents/claimants would submit that in the judgment relied on by the appellant, the question of “payment and recovery” was not dealt with by the Supreme Court. By inviting the attention of this Court to the catena of judgments, namely, New India Askusiance Co., Shimla v. V. Kamla and Others AIR 2001 SC 1419 (I): (2001) 4 SCC 342 , Oriental Insurance Co. v. Zaharulnisha and Others AIR 2008 SC 2218 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Rappa Nesaria and Others AIR 2008 SC 1418 (1): (2008) 3 MLJ 502, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohammed Hussain and Another (2008) 6 MLJ 99 : 2008 (4) CTC 127 and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V. Bommi (2009) 5 MLJ 1349 the learned counsel would contend that the insurance company cannot deny its liability in paying the compensation on the ground of non-possession of a driving licence to drive the vehicle when there is a coverage of insurance policy to the vehicle. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both aides and perused the materials on record. 6. In viewof the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the only question that has to be decided in this appeal is, whether the observation made by the Tribunal namely, to pay and recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle, is sustainable or not. 6. In viewof the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the only question that has to be decided in this appeal is, whether the observation made by the Tribunal namely, to pay and recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle, is sustainable or not. To decide the same, it is necessary to look into the dictum laid down in the various judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the 1 and 2 respondents. 7. The facts in Oriental Insurance Co. v. Zaharulnisha and Others (supra) would reveal that the accident was caused by a two wheeler when the victim was going on a bicycle; when the legal heirs filed a claim petition against the owner of the scooter as well had its insurer, a defence was taken by the insurance company that the rider of the scooter had no licence to drive the scooter and he was in possession of a licence only drive heavy motor vehicle; which is totally a different clause of vehicle in terms of Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act; therefore, there was breach of insurance policy condition and the appellant company was not liable to satisfy the award. In that case, it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows: “17. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to driver during the relevant period, the insurer would not. Be allowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunal in interpreting the policy conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose’ and the concept or “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act. 18. In the light of the above settled position of law, the appellant-insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing driving licence to driving HMV and he was driving totally different class of vehicle which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act. 19. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the limited extent and it is directed that the appellant-insurance company though not liable to pay the amount of compensation but in the nature of this case it shall satisfy the award and shall have the right to recover the amount deposited by it along with interest from the owner of the vehicle,- viz., respondent No. 8, particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by him nor has he chosen to appear before this Court to contest, this appeal…” 8. In AIR 2001 SC 1419 (1), it ban been held as follows: “25. The position can be summed up thus: The insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy conditions. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid licence. Learned counsel for the insured contended that it is enough if he establishes that he made all due enquires and believed bona fide that the driver employed by him had a valid driving licence, in which case there was no breach of the policy condition. As we have not decided on that contention it is open to the insured to raise it before the Claims Tribunal. In the present case, if the insurance company succeeds in establishing that there was breach of the policy condition, the Claims Tribunal shall direct, the insured to pay that amount to the insurer. In default the insurer shall be allowed to recover that amount (which the insurer is directed to pay to the claimants-third parties) from the insured person.” 9. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Annappa Rappa Nesaria and Others (supra), it has been held as follows at p. 505 of MLJ: “16….it is evident that transport vehicle has not been substituted for ‘medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Annappa Rappa Nesaria and Others (supra), it has been held as follows at p. 505 of MLJ: “16….it is evident that transport vehicle has not been substituted for ‘medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both. “light passenger carriage vehicle and light goods carriage vehicle. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well. 17. The amendments carried out in the Rules having a prospective operation, the licence held by the driver of the vehicle in question cannot be said to be invalid in low.” 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 this 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 in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Annappa Rappa Nesaria and Others (supra) 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. 11. Withregard to the quantum of compensation, I find from the materials available on record that the deceased was working as Assistant Manager-cum-Purchase Officer in Shadas company and in order to prove his income, on the side of the claimants, the salary certificate issued by the employer was marked as Exhibit P-12, where it could be seen that the deceased was receiving a monthly salary of Rs. 16,500/-. But, the Tribunal has fixed only a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as contribution to the family and arrived at a sum of Rs. 16,500/-. But, the Tribunal has fixed only a sum of Rs. 4,000/- as contribution to the family and arrived at a sum of Rs. 48,000/- as annual loss of contribution and by applying the multiplier of 17, taking into consideration, the age of the 1st respondent/wife of the deceased, awarded a sum of Rs. 8,16,000/ towards loss of income. That apart, by awarding another sum of Rs. 44,000/- under different conventional heads, passed an award for a sum of Rs. 8,60,000/-. I do not find any error in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere with the same. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs. Appeal dismissed.