Judgment :- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai against the order dated 8.11.2005 made in WC.No.424/2004 by the Deputy Commissioner for Labour II for Workmen's Compensation, Chennai. 2. The 1st Respondent/claimant B.Sivasamy (since deceased) was proceeding from Guduvanchery to Chennai on 27.12.2003 driving a Maruti Van and when he reached near Ranganayaki Tea Stall, Kilambakkam, the lorry, which was parked on the right side, was not noticed by him. On seeing the lorry, the driver applied sudden brake and in the said course, he lost his control and hit against the rear side of the lorry. In the said accident, the claimant sustained serious injuries. A report of the accident was lodged at the Police Station, Guduvanchery and the Police registered a case in Cr.No.534.2003. The vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the Appellant Insurance Company and the validity of the policy at the time of the accident are not disputed. The claimant filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner for Labour II, Chennai in WC.No.424/2004, claiming compensation. The Deputy Commissioner for Labour, after appreciation of evidence on record awarded Rs.1,17,106/-as compensation to the claimant. As against the same, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed. 3. This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side and also perused the materials placed on record. 4. Mr.K.S.Narasimhan, the learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Deputy Commissioner for Labour has committed an error in directing the Insurance Company to indemnify the Insurer, when the offending vehicle was driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and the driver had no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the Appellant relied on the decisions reported in 2006-ACJ-1336-SC (M/s.National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kusum Rai), 2008-ACJ-627-SC (New India Assurance Co. Limited Vs. Prabhu Lal) and 2009-ACJ-1411-SC (Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Angad Kol). 5. Per contra, Ms.P.Srividhya, the learned counsel for the Respondents 3 and 4, who are the legal heirs of the deceased claimant, submitted that there was no violation of any terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability. Prabhu Lal) and 2009-ACJ-1411-SC (Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Angad Kol). 5. Per contra, Ms.P.Srividhya, the learned counsel for the Respondents 3 and 4, who are the legal heirs of the deceased claimant, submitted that there was no violation of any terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from its liability. The learned counsel also contended that even if it is held that there was violation of the conditions of the Insurance Policy, the just and reasonable course would be to direct the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the Respondents 3 and 4 and recover it from the owner of the vehicle for breach of the policy conditions. In support of her contention that when the Insurance Company is successful in its defence that the there was violation of by the Insured, then it may pay the amount to the claimant and thereafter, recover the same from the owner, she relied upon the decision of this court reported in 2010-5-LW-510 (The United India Insurance Company Limited, Salem Vs. V.Vijayakumar and others) and the decision of the Full Bench of this court reported in 2009-1-LW-702 (The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nagammal and others). 6. The point for determination before this court in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is as to whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the Insured? 7. It is an admitted fact that the offending vehicle was insured, at the relevant point of time, with the Appellant Insurance Company. As per the Insurance Policy, the terms and conditions provided that the driver must have a valid driving licence for driving the vehicle. The driver B.Sivasamy (since deceased) had a driving licence, which expired on 17.11.2001 and subsequently, it was renewed only on 31.12.2003. Therefore, it is evidently clear that he had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 8. In 2008-ACJ-2860-SC (National Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala), the question of liability of the Insurance Company was considered by their Lordships. It was observed that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle had expired prior to the date of the accident and was got renewed after the accident. 8. In 2008-ACJ-2860-SC (National Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala), the question of liability of the Insurance Company was considered by their Lordships. It was observed that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle had expired prior to the date of the accident and was got renewed after the accident. The Tribunal rejected the plea of the Insurance Company that the license was not valid on the date of the accident, holding that during the intervening period, the driver was not incompetent or disqualified to drive the vehicle. The High Court concluded that gap in renewal of license cannot be a ground for exoneration. Considering the question of liability of the Insurance Company, it was held by the Honourable Supreme Court that the Insurance Company is not liable. 9. The Honourable Supreme Court in 2007-ACJ-1067-SC (Ishwar Chandra and others) has held that where an application for renewal of license was filed after 30 days from the date of expiry, it shall be renewed from the date of the renewal. In that case, as on the date of the accident, license, which had expired on 27.8.1994, was got renewed only after 28.3.1995, the date of the accident. Therefore, it was held that it could not be said that the driver had a valid license on the date of the accident or the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the Insured. The court further directed the Insurer to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant with an option to recover the same from the Insured by initiating proceedings before the executing court. A similar view with regard to the recovery of the amount from the Insured was also taken by the Honourable Supreme Court in 2004-ACJ-721-SC (Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanjappan). 10. In cases where it is contended that there was no policy of insurance at all and there was no insurance cover, the Insurer is not liable, . In such a situation, the question of making the Insurer to pay the amount to the claimant may not arise at all. Nanjappan). 10. In cases where it is contended that there was no policy of insurance at all and there was no insurance cover, the Insurer is not liable, . In such a situation, the question of making the Insurer to pay the amount to the claimant may not arise at all. But, in cases, where there is a valid policy for a particular situation that makes available a right of enforcement of claimant against the Insurer and when the Insurer contends that notwithstanding the right, on account of breach of the terms of the policy by the Insured, it shall not be liable, in the latter situation, by the fact that there was a valid policy to cover particular type of risk, the Insurer is bound to satisfy the claims of the third party. The defence under Section 149(2) can only make available a right of recovery against the Insured. In this case, it has been proved that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and the license had expired long prior to the accident and the same had been renewed only after the accident. The terms of the Insurance Company thus having been breached, it cannot be said that the Insurer is liable to indemnify the Insured and pay the compensation to the claimant. It cannot also be held that the liability to pay compensation to the claimant has to be fastened upon the Insurer. 11. However, keeping in view the ratio and the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in 2007-ACJ-1067-SC (Ishwar Chandra and others) and 2004-ACJ-721-SC (Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanjappan) cited supra and the decisions of this court reported in 2010-5-LW-510 (The United India Insurance Company Limited, Salem Vs. V.Vijayakumar and others) and the decision of the Full Bench of this court reported in 2009-1-LW-702 (The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nagammal and others), and in the interest of justice as also the legal representatives of the claimant, it is appropriate to direct the Insurer to pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner for Labour to the legal representatives of the claimant with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, in accordance with law. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. 12. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. It is directed that the Appellant shall pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Deputy Commissioner for Labour to the legal representatives of the claimant with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.