Judgment C. Praveen Kumar, J. 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the Insurance Company is directed against the order dt. 25-2-2002 passed in MVOP No.729/1996 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. 2. Originally, the sole claimant filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation to an extent of Rs.1,00,000/-for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident which took place on 29-9-1996. According to the claimant, on that day at about 6 PM when he was sitting on the left side of the road selling fruits, a lorry driven by the first respondent-driver in OP in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn dashed against the claimant-injured. Due to which, he fell down and received multiple injuries. Immediately he was shifted to U.G. Hospital. In respect of the said accident, a case in Cr.No.239/1996 was registered by the police of Ibrahimpatnam Police Station. According to him, respondents 1 to 3 in OP who are driver, owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 3. The OP against R-1 was dismissed and R-2 remained ex parte. 4. The third respondent i.e., the insurance company filed their counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition. According to them, the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licnece on the date of accident and no information with regard to the said accident was passed on to the insurance company. According to them, the claimant is put to strict proof that there is valid insurance policy and that there was no breach of terms and conditions of the policy. 5. In order to substantiate his claim, the claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined the Doctor as P.W.2. He got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 and X-1 to X-4. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-3 were marked. 6. The tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, awarded compensation of Rs.44,000/-to be paid by the respondents 2 and 3 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 7. Questioning the said order, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 8. 6. The tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by the parties, awarded compensation of Rs.44,000/-to be paid by the respondents 2 and 3 with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 7. Questioning the said order, the present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. 8. Pending appeal, the respondent No.1 who is sole claimant in OP died and his LRs were brought on record as respondents 4 and 5 vide order dt.11-3-2004 in CMP No.3915/2004. 9. P.W.1 deposed that he sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the crime vehicle. Except suggesting that the accident was not due to any rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry and that it was due to negligence of the claimant, no contra evidence has been let in to dis-prove or discredit the testimony of P.W.1. The first information report was registered against the driver of the vehicle and the police after investigation filed a charge sheet. The said documents were produced on record as Exs.A-1 and A-3 respectively. No steps have been taken by the respondents to rebut the evidence of P.W.1, by examining the driver of the vehicle. In the absence of any evidence contra to P.W.1, the finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle is hereby confirmed. 10. Coming to the quantum of amount to be awarded, P.W.1 in his evidence stated that he sustained fracture to his leg and he was treated in U.G. Hospital, Vijayawada as inpatient for one week. According to him, he remained in the house for six months and could not able to attend to his duties. P.W.2 Doctor who treated P.W.1 deposed that the claimant sustained fracture of both bones of right knee and swelling on thigh. According to Ex.A-2-report of Radiologist, the Radiologist opined that X-ray revealed fracture of both bones of right leg. The tribunal after considering the age, earnings and extent of disability awarded a sum of RS.27,060/-towards total amount of loss of income and permanent disability and further awarded a sum of RS.15,000/-towards pain and suffering. As he was bed ridden for nearly 5 ½ months, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,650/-towards extra nourishment. Thus, in all a sum of Rs.44,000/-was awarded as compensation. As he was bed ridden for nearly 5 ½ months, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,650/-towards extra nourishment. Thus, in all a sum of Rs.44,000/-was awarded as compensation. No appeal has been filed seeking enhancement of the compensation. 11. The only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the driver was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. He took me through the evidence of R.W.2, a Junior Assistant in the office of Regional Transport Authority, Vijayawada. According to him, the driving licence No.4156/K/86 stands in the name of one Lingamaneni Gunaranjan S/o L.S.M.V. Prasad, Pedasanagallu, Movva, Krishna District. M. Munuswamy is not the registered driving licence holder with driving lincece No.4156/K/86 dt. 30-9-1986. Ex.X-4 is the attested Xerox copy of the driving licence history sheet book pertaining to the said licence. R.W.1 in his evidence deposed that as per Ex.B-2 copy of the licnece furnished by the claimant, they referred the same to the issuing authority and after making necessary enquiry, the Additional Licensing Authority had issued a certificate dt. 18-5-1998 to the effect that the driving licnece is valid up to 2-3-1989 only and that it stands in the name of one L.Gunaranjan. Basing on the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2, the insurance company disputed the driving licence alleged to have been in possession of the driver of the vehicle. 12. The learned counsel for the respondents-claimants contends that there is no pleading that the owner entrusted the vehicle to the driver knowingly that he had no valid driving licence at the time of accident. The said plea was also not taken in the counter. In the absence of any evidence, the tribunal also did not frame any issue to that effect. In any event, he contends that there is a violation of conditions of the policy and the insurance company has to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. 13. This Honourable Court in NEW LINDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., SECUNDERABAD V. K. DEVI AND OTHERS ( 2011 (5) ALD 485 ) held as under: “It is not in dispute that the burden of proof would be on the insurance company to establish that there has been a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. LTD., SECUNDERABAD V. K. DEVI AND OTHERS ( 2011 (5) ALD 485 ) held as under: “It is not in dispute that the burden of proof would be on the insurance company to establish that there has been a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Where the insurance company asserts that the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the burden lies on the insurance company to prove the same. It is also settled law that the provisions relating to awarding of compensation are being beneficial provisions, such provisions have to be liberally construed. The main purpose of the provisions is to see that the third parties do not become the helpless victims of motor accidents….(para 10) It was a case where the court was dealing with the situation whether the driver was not holding a valid driving licence, the evidence let in by the respondents therein would reveal that the driver was not having valid licence on the date of accident. This Honourable Court held that “it is not sufficient to prove by the insurance company that the driver was not duly licensed, but they have to prove that he was disqualified for obtaining a driving license during the period of disqualification. 14. The Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., V. SWARAN SINGH (2004 ACJ 1) held as under: “….that the liability of the insurer is statutory one, the liability of the insurer to satisfy the decree in favour of the third party is also statutory. It was further held that the Tribunal should verify whether such violations are willful and whether such violations are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. It was also held that the insurance companies have to specifically plead and prove the same. It is not the case of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the insurance company had specifically pleaded or proved that the violation i.e., non-renewal of driving licence was so fundamental as is found to have contributed to the case of accident. It was also held that the insurance companies have to specifically plead and prove the same. It is not the case of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the insurance company had specifically pleaded or proved that the violation i.e., non-renewal of driving licence was so fundamental as is found to have contributed to the case of accident. Even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the insurance company has proved such violations the observations of the apex Court are relevant in this case…..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 of 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 policy conditions would apply ‘the rule of main purpose’ and the concept of ‘fundamental breach’ to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act……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……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.” 15. In UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., V. LAKSHMAIAH ( 2000 (3) ALT 298 ), this Honourable Court while dealing with the similar situation held that the insurance company cannot disown its liability on the ground that there is no valid driving licnece unless it pleads and adduces evidence that owner handed over the vehicle to the driver having knowledge that the had no driving licence. 16. In NATIONAL INSURANCE CO,LTD. V. KAUSHALYA DEVI ( (2008) 8 SCC 246 ) the Supreme Court was dealing with the situation where the accident was caused by the driver of the vehicle not possessing valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, which was a goods vehicle and the deceased was travelling in the said vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. The Supreme Court after considering various judgments, in the facts and circumstances, held that the owner alone was liable to pay compensation to the respondent for causing the death of her son by rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the truck. 17. As seen above, there is no pleading that the owner entrusted the vehicle to the driver knowingly that he had no driving licence at the time of accident. Further, no issue was framed by the tribunal in that regard. The insurance company did not even plead in their counter that the owner knowingly or deliberately handed over the vehicle to the driver despite having knowledge that he had no driving licence. The tribunal rightly held that mere producing any evidence to show that the driver had no valid driving licence is not sufficient to hold that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. It may be seen that no evidence has been let in to show that the owner of the vehicle was aware that the driver was not having a valid driving licence. The owner of the vehicle would have been the best person to speak about the same. No steps are taken to get him examined. R.W.1 admits in his cross-examination that unless number is furnished, he cannot say whether R-1 was possessing a driving licence as on 29-6-1996. He admits that he has not received any information about driving of any vehicle by R-1 without a valid licence on 29-6-1996. 18. No steps are taken to get him examined. R.W.1 admits in his cross-examination that unless number is furnished, he cannot say whether R-1 was possessing a driving licence as on 29-6-1996. He admits that he has not received any information about driving of any vehicle by R-1 without a valid licence on 29-6-1996. 18. The evidence on record create any amount of doubt as to whether the driver was having a valid licence on the date of incident. Even assuming that by the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence that by itself will not deprive the claimant for claiming compensation. The main purpose of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act is to see that third parties do not become helpless victims in motor accident. The insurance company cannot disown its liability on the ground that the driver was not having a driving licence. As there is a breach of conditions of the policy, the insurance company should first indemnify the claimant and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle i.e., respondent No.2. 19. A Full Bench of Kerala High Court in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V. JOSEPH V.V.@ JOHNY (AIR 2012 KERALA 116) observed that if there are violations of terms of policy, the question of pay and recover would arise. When the case of the deceased was not covered under the policy, question of pay and recover does not arise. It is not in dispute that the present case is one where there is a breach of conditions of the policy. 20. When once there is a breach of violation of conditions of the policy, in view of the Full Bench Judgment of the Kerala High Court and since the injured is a third party to the proceedings, the insurance company is bound to satisfy the claim of third party. 21. In view of the above discussion, I hold that the insurance company has to satisfy the award and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 22. It is brought to my notice that this Court by its order dt. 11-3-2004 directed the appellant-insurance company to deposit costs and interest, in addition to the half of the amount already deposited as required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and respondents 4 and 5 were permitted to withdraw the same. 22. It is brought to my notice that this Court by its order dt. 11-3-2004 directed the appellant-insurance company to deposit costs and interest, in addition to the half of the amount already deposited as required under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and respondents 4 and 5 were permitted to withdraw the same. The insurance company should not take any steps to recover the said amounts from the claimants and the same can be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. 24. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the interest awarded by the tribunal is on higher side and seeks reduction of the same. Hence, the rate of interest of 9% per annum as awarded by the tribunal is reduced to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. 25. With the above modifications, the appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs.