Judgment : 1. Aggrieved by the Award, dated 05.12.2013 passed in M.A.C.T.O.P.No.673 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II Additional District Judge), Pondicherry, Correspondent of Aaruthra English School, Puducherry, has preferred this Appeal. 2. Respondents 1 to 4 are the wife, daughter and sons of the deceased Kaliyamurthy. According to them, he was working as watchman in Moral Matriculation School, Korkadu, Puducherry and was earning Rs.8,000/-per month. On 6.5.2011, about 19.50 hours, when the deceased was proceeding in a bi-cycle, on Karikalambakkam to Villikanur Road, a Mahindra Van bearing Regn.No.TN-59-C-7555, owned by the Correspondent, Aaruthra English School, Jayaganesh Nagar, Korkadu Village, Puducherry, and insured with Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Chennai, driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against the said Kaliyamoorthy, near the said school. He sustained a severe head injury and injuries on both legs, back and all over the body. Initially, he was provided first aid in Primary Health Centre, Karikalambakkam, and thereafter, referred to Government General Hospital, Puducherry. Despite intensive treatment, he died, on the same day. According to the respondents/claimants, at the time of accident, he was aged 50 years. A criminal case in Crime No.94 of 2011 u/s. 279, and 304 (A) of IPC was registered by the Station House Officer, Traffic P.S., Villianur, Puducherry against the driver of the said Mahindra Van. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 3. Owner of the Mahindra Van, namely, the Correspondent, Aaruthra English School, Jayaganesh Nagar, Korkadu Village, Puducherry, the first respondent in the claim petition, filed a counter affidavit, denying the manner of accident. He further submitted that, as the vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy from 23.7.2010 to 22.7.2011, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Chennai, alone is liable to pay the compensation. He denied the avocation of the deceased, as the watchman, in Moral Matriculation School, Korkadu, Puducherry. Without prejudice to the same, he also disputed the age, income and the quantum of compensation claimed, under various heads. 4. In the counter affidavit, the Insurance Company / second respondent in the claim petition, has resisted the claim, contending inter alia that, there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Mahindra Van bearing Regn.No.TN 59 C 7555, insured with them. They also further contended that one Mr. 4. In the counter affidavit, the Insurance Company / second respondent in the claim petition, has resisted the claim, contending inter alia that, there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of Mahindra Van bearing Regn.No.TN 59 C 7555, insured with them. They also further contended that one Mr. Udhayakumar, S/o.Sugumar, said to have driven the vehicle, has been charged u/s.3 r/w 181 of M.V.Act. Therefore, when the owner of Mahindra Van, namely, the Correspondent of Aaruthra English School, Puducherry, had allowed the vehicle insured with them, to be driven by a person, without a valid and effective driving licence, there is a breach of policy condition, for which, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. Without prejudice to the above, they disputed the age, avocation, income and quantum of the compensation claimed under various heads. 5. Before the Claims tribunal, wife of the deceased examined herself as PW.1 and reiterated the manner of accident. She has not witnessed the accident. However, PW.2, stated to be an eye-witness, has been examined. Ex.P.1 dated 6.5.2011 copy of FIR, Ex.P.2 dated 7.5.2011 copy of Post-Mortem Report, Ex.P.3 dated 24.7.2009 copy of permit, Ex.P.4 dated 20.7.2010 copy of Insurance Certificate, Ex.P.5 dated 14.2.1991 copy of Registration Certificate, Ex.P.6 dated 27.5.1979 copy of Marriage invitation of Muthulakshmi, Ex.P.7 dated 03.08.1983 Birth Certificate of Vijaya, Ex.P.8 dated 29.4.1987 Birth Certificate of Balu, Ex.P.9 dated 20.10.1988 Birth Certificate of Ravisasthri, Ex.P.10 dated 6.9.2011 copy of final report, Ex.P.11 dated 6.5.2011 copy of Accident Register, Ex.P.12 dated 22.9.2012 Service Certificate of Kaliyamurthy, Ex.P.13 dated 5.6.2006 copy of family ration card, and Ex.P.14 dated 6.5.2011 copy of Accident Inspection Report have been marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the respondents in the claim petition, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Transport Department, Puducherry, has been examined as RW.1. Ex.R.1 dated 8.8.2007 is the copy of Election Identity Card of Kaliyamoorthy, the deceased. 6. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that the driver of Mahindra Van, involved in the accident, was negligent in causing the accident. Ex.R.1 dated 8.8.2007 is the copy of Election Identity Card of Kaliyamoorthy, the deceased. 6. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that the driver of Mahindra Van, involved in the accident, was negligent in causing the accident. Having regard to the testimony of RW.1, Ex.P.5, Ex.P.10 Charge Sheet, and Ex.P.14 Accident Inspection Report, held that the driver of the Mahindra Van involved in the accident did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, at the time of the accident, and that therefore, there was violation of the condition of insurance policy. Following the decision of the Courts and considering the statutory provisions, the Claims Tribunal directed the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Chennai, to pay a sum of Rs.8,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a., from the date of claim, till the date of realisation, to the legal heirs of the deceased, and granted liberty to the insurer, to recover the said amount, from the owner of the vehicle. 7. The Insurance Company has not filed any appeal. Being aggrieved by the right of recovery, granted to the Insurance Company/ second respondent, in the claim petition, the Correspondent of Aaruthra English School, Puducherry, has filed the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the owner of the offending vehicle has contended that the Claims Tribunal has erred in placing reliance on Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.10 charge sheet and Ex.P.14 Accident Inspection Report and, also erred in giving credence to the oral testimony of RW.1, the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Transport Department, Government of Pondicherry, in arriving at the conclusion that, at the time of the accident, the driver of Mahindra Van, involved in the accident, did not possess any valid and effective driving licence, and that therefore, there was a violation of insurance policy conditions warranting right of recovery. In addition to the above, learned counsel for the appellant/owner of the vehicle, further submitted that the person, alleged to have driven the vehicle was not the driver engaged by the school. Except the above, no other submission has been advanced. 9. Considering the limited challenge made in this appeal, there is no need to advert to the manner of negligence, and the quantum of compensation. Except the above, no other submission has been advanced. 9. Considering the limited challenge made in this appeal, there is no need to advert to the manner of negligence, and the quantum of compensation. As regards the finding of the Claims Tribunal, fixing the negligence on the driver of the Mahindra Van, involved in the accident, insured with the Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., when a specific question was posed to the learned counsel for Aaruthra English School, as to whether, the owner of the vehicle namely, Correspondent of Aaruthra English School, Puducherry, had ever taken any defence, in the counter affidavit filed before the Claims Tribunal that the person who drove the vehicle and caused the accident, resulting in the death of Kaliyamoorthy, was not the driver of the school, and not authorised to drive the vehicle, Mr.A.Prabhakaran, learned counsel for the appellant, candidly admitted that no such defence was taken in the counter affidavit. Thus, for the first time, in the present appeal, owner of the offending vehicle has taken up a plea that the person who had caused the accident was not their driver. New facts cannot be allowed to be introduced in the Appeal. Nowhere in the counter affidavit, owner of the offending vehicle has averred that he had made any steps to verify, as to whether the driver had any valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. On the contra, owner of the vehicle has only pleaded indemnification, by the insured, on the ground that, on the date of accident, there was a subsisting insurance policy. Though Oriental Insurance Col.Ltd., Puducherry has filed a counter affidavit, claiming exoneration from its liability to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased on the ground of violation of policy condition, by the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle, no document has been filed before the Claims Tribunal to prove that, the person who drove the vehicle, did possess a valid and effective driving licence. Had the driver possessed licence at the time of accident, nothing prevented the appellant/owner of the vehicle to produce a copy of the licence. Judicial notice can also be taken that whenever a driver is engaged, the owner of the vehicle would retain the original licence with him or at least a copy of the licence, after perusing the original. Had the driver possessed licence at the time of accident, nothing prevented the appellant/owner of the vehicle to produce a copy of the licence. Judicial notice can also be taken that whenever a driver is engaged, the owner of the vehicle would retain the original licence with him or at least a copy of the licence, after perusing the original. Admittedly, the vehicle belonged to the School and in normal circumstances, an educational vehicle is expected to be used for transporting students and staff and for other incidental works relating to education. The Correspondent of Aaruthra English School, Puducherry / appellant has admitted that the school is the owner of the vehicle. In such circumstances, the appellant ought to have taken utmost care and caution in allowing or authorising a person, to drive the vehicle, for the reason that, students/staff would travel in a school vehicle. Even before this Court, the appellant/owner of the vehicle has not produced the licence of the driver of the vehicle, who caused the accident. Thus, it is evident that the offending vehicle was driven by a person, without a valid and effective driving licence, and the above said fact has been proved by the cumulative assessment of evidence of the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector, Transport Department, Government of Pondicherry, coupled with the facts in Ex.P.1 FIR, Ex.P.10 Charge Sheet, and Ex.P.14 Accident Inspection Report. 10. If there is violation of the conditions of policy, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, except to the third party. The legal position has been engrafted under sections 147 and 149 (4) and (5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 itself. The said aspect has been elaborately considered by this Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Vs. Annakkili, reported in 2012 (1) TN MAC 226, and also in the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2013 (7) SCC 62 . 11. In the light of the above decisions, and considering the evidence on record, this Court is of the view that there is no manifest illegality in the impugned Award, directing Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Chennai, to pay the compensation amount to the legal representatives of the deceased and then to recover from the appellant/owner of the vehicle. For the reasons stated supra, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. For the reasons stated supra, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.