Judgment : 1. This Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company as against the award dated 16.9.2008 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 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 31.3.2004, 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 fresh 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 license. 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 Exs.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. Learned Counsel for the appellant, by relying upon the judgment reported in National insurance Co. 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 reported in National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala, 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 license had 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 1st and 2nd 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 Assurance Co., Shimla v. V. Kamla and others, AIR 2001 SC 1419 (I); Oriental Insurance Co. v. Zaharulnisha and others, 2009 (1) TN MAC 419 (SC) AIR 2008 SC 2218 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and others, 2008 (1) TN MAC 200 (SC): AIR 2008 SC 1418 (I); Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohammad Hussain and another, 2008 (4) CTC 127 ; and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Bommi, 2009 (2) TN MAC 86 (DB): 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 a liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials on record. 6. In view of 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 vehicle, is sustainable or not? Heard the learned counsel for both sides and perused the materials on record. 6. In view of 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 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 1st and 2nd respondents. 7. The facts in Oriental Insurance Co. v. Zaharulnisha and others, 2009 (1) TN MAC 419 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 2218 , 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 as 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 to drive heavy Motor Vehicles, which is totally a different clause of vehicle in terms of Section 10 of the Motor Vehicle Act; therefore; there was breach of Insurance Policy conditions and the appellants-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 drive 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 Tribunals in interpreting the Police conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act. 18. The Tribunals in interpreting the Police conditions would apply “the rule of main purpose” and the concept of “fundamental breach” to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act. 18. In the light of the above settled proposition 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 of 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 New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. V. Kamla and others, AIR 2001 SC 1419 (1), it has been held as follows: “25. The Position can be summed up thus: The Insurer and insured are bound by the condition enumerated in the Policy and the Insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of anu Policy condition. But the Insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third 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 enquiries 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. Learned counsel for the insured contended that it is enough if he establishes that he made all due enquiries 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 Irappa Nesaria and others, 2008 (1) TN MAC 200 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 1418 (I), it has been held as follows: “16. …it is evident that transport vehicle has not been sustained for ‘medium goods vehicle’ and ‘heavy goods vehicle’. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant pint 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 authorized 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 law”. 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 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 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. Though the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and others, 2008 (1) TN MAC 200 (SC) : AIR 2008 SC 1418 (I), was relied upon by the appellant, in the said lodgment, the question of “payment and recovery” was not dealth with, I am not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant. 11. With regard 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 M/s. 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 Ex.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.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.