ORDER G.D. Saxena, J. 1. These appeals (Miscellaneous Appeal No. 62/2004) and Miscellaneous Appeal No. 65/2004) have been preferred by the Insurance company/appellant, herein, challenging the common Award dated 20th October 2003 in Claim Case No. 13/2003 for causing death of Smt. Rekha, daughter-in-law of Santlal as well as Claim Case No. 14/2003 for causing injuries to Santlal and his minor son Sunil, passed by the Seventh Additional Member of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Gwalior. In the first claim case, the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,49,500/- in favour of the claimants on account of death of Smt. Rekha with interest @ 9% per annum whereas in another claim case a sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the injured Santlal and his son Sunil was awarded with interest @ 9% per annum, which was directed to be paid against the owner, driver and Insurance company on the principles of joint and several liability. The admitted facts of the case are that on 14th November 2002 injured/claimant Santlal alongwith his daughter-in-law Smt. Rekha and a minor son Sunil was going on his scooter bearing registration No. MP07 KD 0061 from Gwalior to Morena. When he and the accompanied persons while riding on scooter reached near Rawat Hotel within jurisdiction of Police Station Purani Chhawani, at that juncture, one truck bearing Registration No. MP07/G-3581 driven by Arun Singh Rathor in a high speed came and dashed the claimant, his daughter-in-law and son. Resultantly, Smt. Rekha died on the spot while others, namely, Santlal and his son received injuries. The F.I.R. of the accident was lodged on which crime was registered against the driver of the vehicle involved in accident. It was submitted that on the date of accident, the claimant Santlal was working as constable in the Police Department and was earning Rs. 5,000/- as monthly salary. It is submitted that in the said accident, Santlal sustained injuries on head, neck, right eye and other parts of the body and his son also got injuries on the head. After trial, the learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum as compensation to each injured, i.e., Santal and his son Sunil. The learned tribunal also awarded Rs. 1,49,000/- as compensation for the death of Rekha in such accident. After trial, the learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum as compensation to each injured, i.e., Santal and his son Sunil. The learned tribunal also awarded Rs. 1,49,000/- as compensation for the death of Rekha in such accident. Against grant of such awards in death as well as injury case, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred the aforesaid appeals. 2. The contention put forth on behalf of the appellants-Insurance Company is that the Award under appeal is against the facts and evidence on record, hence, it is liable to be set aside. It is submitted that the tribunal erred in holding to indemnify the liability on behalf of the owner of the vehicle involved in accident and despite the fact proved by the appellant by leading cogent evidence that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing the valid driving licence and that there was breach of terms of the policy, such findings have been given fixing liability on the insurer to pay the award amount. On these arguments, it is prayed that by allowing the appeals, the Insurance company may be absolved from indemnifying the liability of the insured. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of New India Assurance Co. Vs. Kamla and others (2001) 4 SCC 342 , National Insurance Co. Vs. Laxminarayan Dhut (2007) 3 SCC 700 , Sardari & others Vs. Sushil Kumar and others (2008) ACJ 1307, National Insurance Company Vs. Kaushalyadevi 2008 ACJ 2144 (SC). 3. On the other hand, the claimants by way of counter-appeal nowhere prayed for enhancement of the award amount which appears to be on lower side. 4. The aforesaid prayer and contentions of the Insurance Company/appellant have been vehemently opposed by the owner and driver of the vehicle by arguing their case and it is submitted that since the vehicle was insured, the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the liability on behalf of the owner/insured. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the record of the case and examined the law on the points so raised. 6. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Also perused the record of the case and examined the law on the points so raised. 6. The question for consideration in these appeals is whether the Insurance company in case of breach of terms and conditions of the policy is liable to identify the award amount on behalf of the owner or it can be directed to satisfy the award amount first and thereafter recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle? 7. Considering the legal aspect in relation to the liability of payment to third party by the Insurance companies in cases of fake driving licence of the vehicle involved in accident, the relevant provisions as mentioned in the Motor vehicles Act 1988 are reproduced below:- 147. 7. Considering the legal aspect in relation to the liability of payment to third party by the Insurance companies in cases of fake driving licence of the vehicle involved in accident, the relevant provisions as mentioned in the Motor vehicles Act 1988 are reproduced below:- 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.-(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in subsection(2)- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person [including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: Provided that a policy shall not be required- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee- (a) Engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) If it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) If it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) To cover any contractual liability. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:- (a) Save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) In respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. 149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.- (1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) [or under the provisions of Section 163A] is obtained against any person insured by the policy then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely:- (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely:- (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle- (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (b) for organised racing and speed testing, or (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or (d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or (iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or (b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. (3) Where any such judgment as is referred to in sub-section (1) is obtained from a Court in a reciprocating country and in the case of a foreign judgment is, by virtue of the provisions of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) conclusive as to any matter adjudicated upon by it, the insurer (being an insurer registered under the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938) and whether or not he is registered under the corresponding law of the reciprocating country) shall be liable to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree in the manner and to the extent specified in sub-section (1), as if the judgment were given by a Court in India: Provided that no sum shall be payable by the insurer in respect of any such judgment unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment is given, the insurer had notice through the Court concerned of the bringing of the proceedings and the insurer to whom notice is so given is entitled under the corresponding law of the reciprocating country, to be made a party to the proceedings and to defend the action on grounds similar to those specified in sub-section (2). (4) Where a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 147 to the person by whom a policy has been effected, so much of the policy as purports to restrict the insurance of the persons insured thereby by reference to any conditions other than those in clause (b) of sub-section (2) shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147, be of no effect: Provided that any sum paid by the insurer in or towards the discharge of any liability of any person which is covered by the policy by virtue only of this sub-section shall be recoverable by the insurer from that person. (5) If the amount which an insurer becomes liable under this section to pay in respect of a liability incurred by a person insured by a policy exceeds the amount for which the insurer would apart from the provisions of this section be liable under the policy in respect of that liability, the insurer shall be entitled to recover the excess from that person. (6) In this section the expressions "material fact" and "material particular" means, respectively a fact or particular of such a nature as to influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in determining whether he will take the risk and, if so, at what premium and on what conditions, and the expression "liability covered by the terms of the policy" means a liability which is covered by the policy or which would be so covered but for the fact that the insurer is entitled to avoid or cancel or has avoided or cancelled the policy. (7) No insurer to whom the notice referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) has been given shall be entitled to avoid his liability to any person entitled to the benefit of any such judgment or award as is referred to in sub-section (1) or in such judgment as is referred to in sub-section (3) otherwise than in the manner provided for in subsection (2) or in the corresponding law of the reciprocating country, as the case may be. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "Claims Tribunal" means a Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 and "award" means an award made by that Tribunal under Section 168. 8. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , at page 337, the Hon. Apex Court observed as follows:- Where the driver's licence is found to be fake 92. It may be true as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that a fake or forged licence is as good as no licence but the question herein, as noticed hereinbefore, is whether the insurer must prove that the owner was guilty of the willful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance. In Lehru case he matter has been considered in some detail. We are in general agreement with the approach of the Bench but we intend to point out that the observations made therein must be understood to have been made in the light of the requirements of the law in terms whereof the insurer is to establish willful breach on the part of the insured and not for the purpose of its disentitlement from raising any defence or for the owners to be absolved from any liability whatsoever. We would be dealing in some detail with this aspect of the matter a little later. We would be dealing in some detail with this aspect of the matter a little later. Conclusion 104. It is, therefore, evident from the discussions made hereinbefore that the liability of the insurance company to satisfy the decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver thereof has been holding the field for a long time. 107. We may, however, hasten to add that the Tribunal and the court must, however, exercise their jurisdiction to issue such a direction upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case and in the event such a direction has been issued, despite arriving at a finding of fact to the effect that the insurer has been able to establish that the insured has committed a breach of contract of insurance as envisaged under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, the insurance company shall be entitled to realise the awarded amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle, as the case may be, in execution of the same award having regard to the provisions of Sections 165 and 168 of the Act. However, in the event, having regard to the limited scope of inquiry in the proceedings before the Tribunal it had not been able to do so, the insurance company may initiate a separate action therefore against the owner or the driver of the vehicle or both, as the case may be. Those exceptional cases may arise when the evidence becomes available to or comes to the notice of the insurer at a subsequent stage or for one reason or the other, the insurer was not given an opportunity to defend at all. Such a course of action may also be resorted to when a fraud or collusion between the victim and the owner of the vehicle is detected or comes to the knowledge of the insurer at a later stage. Summary of findings 110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles 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 vehicles. Summary of findings 110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles 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 vehicles. 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 163A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles 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 defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the 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 matter 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. (iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish "breach" on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (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 the 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 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. (vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfill the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. (viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. (ix) The Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the Tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between the insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. (x) 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. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with the proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover the amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse to by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of the insurer against the 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. 9. Recently in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Davinder Singh, (2007) 8 SCC 698 , at page 702: the Hon. Apex Court observed as follows:- 36. The inevitable conclusion therefore is that the decision in Swaran Singh case has no application to own damage cases. 9. Recently in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Davinder Singh, (2007) 8 SCC 698 , at page 702: the Hon. Apex Court observed as follows:- 36. The inevitable conclusion therefore is that the decision in Swaran Singh case has no application to own damage cases. The effect of fake licence has to be considered in the light of what has been stated by this Court in New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla. Once the licence is a fake one the renewal cannot take away the effect of fake licence. It was observed in Kamla case as follows: (SCC p. 347, para 12) 12. As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of the Act only empowers any licensing authority to 'renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry'. No licensing authority has the power to renew a fake licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it contains a purported order of a statutory authority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that other persons including some statutory authorities would have acted on the document unwittingly on the assumption that it is genuine. 10. Now coming to the factual aspects of the present case and perusal of the evidence produced by the Insurance Company (the appellants herein) it is crystal clear from the statement of witnesses Sanjay Kumar Shandiya (NAW-2), the appointed Investigating Officer of the company and Smt. Nalini Pawar (NAW-4), Upper Division Clerk posted in RTO office Gwalior that the Regional Transport Authority, Gwalior renewed the driving licence in favour of Arun Singh Rathor, the driver of the truck involved in accident which was valid from 27th August 1990 till 26th August 1993. Second time it was renewed for the period from 24th July 2000 to 23rd July 2003 on the basis of previous licence issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Alwar from dated 18th April 1984 till 17th April 1987. Second time it was renewed for the period from 24th July 2000 to 23rd July 2003 on the basis of previous licence issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Alwar from dated 18th April 1984 till 17th April 1987. Ravindra Kumar Singhal, Administrative Officer of the Insurance Company (NAW-1) deposed that on his request branch office of Alwar appointed an Investigator, namely, Rajendra Kumar for conducting enquiry regarding the truthfulness of licence issued to Arun Kumar Rathor, driver of the vehicle involved and after enquiry by the Investigator above he informed that no licence was issued to Arun Singh Rathor, driver of the offending vehicle. However, no certificate or letter issued by the Licensing Authority, Alwar or the statement of the employee of Licensing authority deputed in the office at Alwar or of Investigator Rajendra Kumar are on record of the tribunal. It is true that the driver of the vehicle involved in accident or owner of the vehicle were required to prove that at the time of accident the driver of the vehicle was possessing the valid driving licence of the specified vehicle. On coming to the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, this court finds that in all those cases, the driver of the vehicle did not have the valid driving licence. However, the facts in Premkumari Vs. Prahlad Dev (2008) 3 MLJ 568 (SC) would show that the insurance company was exonerated from its liability in paying compensation on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and the same was confirmed by the High Court; but the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the finding of the Tribunal stating that though the conclusion was in favour of the Insurance company and only in those circumstances, when the Insurance company succeeded in its defence available to them under section 149 of the Act, permission was given to the Insurance company to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, following the principles laid down in Premkumari's case (supra) this court is of the view that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, following the principles laid down in Premkumari's case (supra) this court is of the view that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation and thereafter to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Hence, the appellants-Insurance Company herein is directed to satisfy the award amount in favour of the claimants within a period of six weeks from the date of this order and on such deposit, the total amount of compensation in the light of the terms of the impugned Award of the learned tribunal shall be disbursed to the claimants. The insurer for recovery of such amount from the owner shall initiate proceedings before the Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner is the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal. The said issue after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the owner and Insurance Company shall be resolved by the learned tribunal in such proceedings within a period of six months from the date of deposit of the award amount before the learned MACT. In view of aforesaid, both the appeals are hereby disposed of.