Judgment :- 1. This appeal is by the insurer, questioning the liability fastened on it to pay the compensation awarded by the 1st Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (SCCH-11) Bangalore, in MVC. No.1389/2006, dated 22.03.2007. 2. The respondents-1 to 3 are the wife, mother and daughter of deceased Sabanna, who died in a motor accident that occurred on 17.07.2005, involving autorickshaw bearing No.KA-11/3025. During the enquiry before the Tribunal, the claimant-respondents have established the factum of occurrence of accident, involvement of the offending vehicle-autorickshaw bearing No.KA-11/3025, rash and negligent driving of its rider, the insurance coverage of the said vehicle with the insurer, the appellant herein. Therefore, this court need not look into the said aspects, inasmuch as, the same has remained unchallenged. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that, as on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid licence to drive the said vehicle, as the licence (Ex.R.1) was valid only for the period from 25.04.1991 to 23.04.1994. Further the contended that, only with a view to fasten liability on the appellant, the owner of the offending vehicle has not contended the case before the Tribunal and therefore, he contended that, the insurer has the right to take a defence, as contemplated under section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the Act. Secondly she contended that, there was a violation of permit by the owner of the vehicle, inasmuch as, he has permitted to carry more passengers than permitted and therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability on the appellant to indemnify the appellant to pay the compensation awarded and therefore, the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents-1 to 3 submitted that, the claimants being third parties, in a claim petition filed under section-163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), they are not required to prove, as to whether the driver of the offending vehicle did possess the valid licence or not on the date of accident and such burden is wholly lies on the owner and insurer of the vehicle and not on the claimants. Further he contended that, the claimants requires to plead and establish the factum of occurrence of accident, actionable negligence on the part of the rider/driver of the offending vehicle and in such circumstances, the insurer had an opportunity to pay the compensation awarded and thereafter, to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the appellant. 5. A perusal of the records it is seen that, though it is the contention of the appellant that, the licence held by driver of the offending vehicle had lapsed, and he did not possess valid licence to drive the vehicle, as on the date of accident. That itself is not a proof that he was disqualified from driving the vehicle or he was completely denuded from driving the vehicle, as the driver had a licence and there is not evidence as to whether the driver did not get it renewed or got fresh licence. In such circumstances, unless the insurer prays that the driver was not at all having the licence to drive, it is to appreciate the contention of the insurer. Added to this, it now well settled law, as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company - vs – Zaharuinisha and others (2008 AIR SCW-3251) that, the liability of the insurer in respect of the risk of third party would be deemed to be a judgment debtor in respect of its liability and violation of provisions of Section 149 (4) (5) of the Act may result in absolving insurers, but same may not necessarily hold good in case of third party and that, liability of insurer to satisfy the decree passed in favour of third party is statutory. The exception applies only to acts done intentionally or so recklessly as to denote that the assured did not care what the consequences of his act might be. The provisions of sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section-149 of the M.V.Act may be considered as to the liability of the insurer to satisfy the decree at the first instance. Further, as has been held by the Apex Court in Kusum Lata and others – vs – Satbir and others (2011 AIR SCW1593). In respect of dispute about licence, the insurance company has to pay and then may recover it from the owner of the vehicle. Further, as has been held by the Apex Court in Kusum Lata and others – vs – Satbir and others (2011 AIR SCW1593). In respect of dispute about licence, the insurance company has to pay and then may recover it from the owner of the vehicle. Further, it is just and necessary to refer to the decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited –vs – Swaran Singh and others (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases-297) wherein, the Apex Court has held as under: “110. Xxx (i) Chapter-XI of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of Vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicle. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section-163-A or Section-166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2) (a) (ii) of Section-149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defence available to the insurer against either the insured or third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the mater of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.” Thus, the first contention of learned counsel for the appellant that, as on the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid licence, has no leg to stand and the same is hereby rejected. 6. 6. In so far as the second contention, as regards violation of permit is concerned, it is just and necessary to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited – vs- K.M.Poonam and others (2011 AIR SCW-2802) wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under: “24. Xxxxxx notwithstanding the larger number of persons carried in the vehicle. Such excess number of persons would have to be treated as third parties, but since no premium had been paid in the policy for them, the insurer would not be liable to make payment of the compensation amount as far as they are concerned. However, the liability of the Insurance Company to make payment even in respect of persons not covered by the insurance policy continues under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, as it would be entitled to recover the conditions of the policy had been breached by the owner of the vehicle. In the instant case, any of the persons traveling in the vehicle in excess of he permitted number of six passenger, tough entitled to be compensated by the owner of the vehicle, would still be entitled to receive the compensation amount from the insurer, who could then recover it from the insured owner of the vehicle. 26xxxx the number of persons to be compensated being in excess of the number of persons who could validly be carried in the vehicle, the question which arises is on of apportionment of the amounts to be paid. Since there can be no pick and choose method to identify the five passengers, excluding the driver, in respect of whom compensation would be payable by the Insurance Company, to meet the ends of justice we may apply the procedure adopted in Baljit Kaur’s case (AIR 2004 SC-1340) (supra) and direct that the Insurance Company should deposit the total amount of compensation awarded to all the claimants and the amounts so deposited be disbursed to the claimants in respect to their claims, with liberty to the Insurance Company to recovery the amounts paid by it over and above the compensation amounts payable in respect of the persons covered by the Insurance Policy from the owner of the vehicle, as was directed in Baljit Kaur’s case.”7. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the decisions of the Apex Court referred supra, this Court is of the considered view that, none of the contentions urged by learned counsel for the appellant can be accepted. Under such circumstances, the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the appellant-insurer to pay the compensation awarded. On re-appreciation of the impugned judgment and award, with reference to the material on record, this court is of the considered view that there is no justification for this Court to interfere with the impugned Judgment and award and consequently, the appeal is liable to be allowed in part. Hence, I pass the following order:i) The appeal is allowed in part. In modification of the impugned Judgment award dated 22.03.2007 passed by the 1st Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (SCCH-11), Bangalore in MVC. No.1389/2006, liberty is given to the appellant-insurer to proceed against the respondent No.4, the R.C. owner and recover the entire amount of compensation either in the same proceedings or in execution proceedings, if the insured found violated the policy conditions. ii) The impugned Judgment and award, in so far as it relates to quantum of compensation, rate of interest and apportionment of compensation shall remain unaltered. iii) The amount in deposit shall be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.