JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Michael Zothankhuma, J. Heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, counsel for the respondent No. 1 i.e. the owner of the Alto Car No. MZ-01 K-9701. 2. The present appeal has been filed against the Judgment & Award dated 1.4.2016 passed by the learned MACT, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 25 of 2015, by which the claim of the appellant for compensation has been dismissed. The learned Tribunal has however, given liberty to the claimant to file a fresh claim against the Driver of offending vehicle, i.e. Alto Car No. MZ-01 K-9701. 3. The brief facts of the case is that on 12.1.2015, one Scooty bearing Registration No. MZ-01 K-3200 driven by the deceased Vanlalchhanchhuaha was hit from behind by one Alto Car bearing Registration No. MZ-01 K-9701. As a result of the accident, the rider of the Scooty i.e. Vanlalchhanchhuaha expired. However, the pinion rider did not suffer any serious injury from the accident. 4. The mother of the deceased thereafter, filed MACT Case No. 25 of 2015 claiming compensation for the death of her son and impleaded the present respondent No. 1 and the National Insurance Company Limited as party in the claim petition. 5. The learned Tribunal thereafter, dismissed the claim of the appellant on the ground that the driver of the offending Alto Car namely, Jerome V.L. Chhanchhuaha had not been made a party in the claim petition. The learned Tribunal also came to a finding that the driver of the Alto Car was under age at the relevant time and did not have a driving license. 6. The appellants counsel submits that learned Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the Insurance Company was not liable inasmuch as, the liability of the Insurance Company to pay compensation is even if the driver of the vehicle is under age and does not have a driving license. In this respect, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the Judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Padma Khaklari Vs. Sujit Kumar Roy and Ors. reported in 2006 (1) TAC 379 (GAU), Judgment of the Apex Court in S. Iyyapan Vs. M/s United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2013 (3) TAC 392 (SC) and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh & ors. Sujit Kumar Roy and Ors. reported in 2006 (1) TAC 379 (GAU), Judgment of the Apex Court in S. Iyyapan Vs. M/s United India Insurance Company Limited reported in 2013 (3) TAC 392 (SC) and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh & ors. reported in 2004 (3) SCC 297 . 7. Mr. Rosangzuala Ralte, counsel for the respondents on the other hand submits that the respondent No. 1 was not aware that the driver of the Alto Car, who is her son, had taken the vehicle. The learned counsel submits that the respondent No. 1 did not give any permission to her son to drive the said vehicle. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9. In Padma Khaklari (Supra), the facts of the case is that the appellant was run over by a vehicle was standing on the side of the road and though the driver of the offending vehicle had appeared as opposite party No. 2. In the cause title of the impugned Judgment, the learned Tribunal was not sure whether the driver of the offending vehicle had been impleaded and proper notice served to him or not. Further the Court found that the Tribunal had not disposed of the application by the appellant for impleading the driver of the offending vehicle. Despite the above, the learned Tribunal had dismissed the appellants claim petition on the ground of non impleadment of the driver. The Division Bench of this Court had found that the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, no where provides that the driver of the vehicle is a necessary party to adjudicate the claim filed under the Act. 10. In the case of S. Iyyapan (supra), the Apex Court had held that: "the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a license to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to the drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving license. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy". 11. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy". 11. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh & ors. (Supra), the Apex Court had held that: "(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving license 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 license 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." 12. The facts of this case is different from the facts of the cases mentioned by the appellants. In the present case, the driver of the offending vehicle being under age, cannot have a driving license. In the judgments cited by the appellants counsel, the drivers of the offending vehicle were all majors and they were eligible to be given driving license as per law. Some of the drivers in the said judgments were also having driving licenses but some were fake. The facts of the present case stand on a different footing and as such, the judgments cited by the appellants counsel are not applicable to the present case. 13. In National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kaushalaya Devi reported in 2008 (8) SCC 246 , the Apex Court has held that the provisions relating to the necessity of having a license to drive a vehicle are contained in Sections 3, 4 & 10 of the Act. In the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rakesh Kumar Arora and others reported in 2008 (13) SCC 298 , the Apex Court has held in para 9 that : "9. In the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rakesh Kumar Arora and others reported in 2008 (13) SCC 298 , the Apex Court has held in para 9 that : "9. Section 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act prohibits driving of a vehicle by any person under the age of eighteen years in any public place. Section 5 of the Act imposes a statutory responsibility upon the owners of the motor vehicles not to cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of Sections 3 or 4 to drive the vehicle." It upheld the decision of the Tribunal wherein it opined that the Insurance Company was not liable to make payment of compensation to the claimants on the ground that the driver of offending vehicle was under age and he did not have a driving license on the date of the accident. 14. The present case is similar in facts to the case of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rakesh Kumar Arora and others to the extent that the drivers of the offending vehicles are both under age and not having driving license. 15. With regard to whether the owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay compensation to the claimants, the learned Tribunal would have to go into the question of whether the owner had allowed the under age driver to drive the offending vehicle. In the evidence on record, there is no evidence to the effect that the respondent No. 1 had allowed her under age son to drive the offending vehicle. I also find that the driver of the offending vehicle was not made a party in the claim petition. The evidence of the driver of the offending vehicle would be crucial to come to a finding whether the owner of the vehicle was liable to pay compensation. 16. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prithvi Raj reported in 2008 (2) SCC 338 , the Apex Court held that the Insurance Company was not liable in respect of an accident caused by the driver of the offending vehicle, who had not been issued any license by the licensing authority. 17. In view of the fact that there has been a breach of condition of the contract of Insurance, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 17. In view of the fact that there has been a breach of condition of the contract of Insurance, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants. Also, in view of the fact that the learned Tribunal has given liberty to file a fresh claim against the driver of the offending vehicle, this Court does not find any infirmity with the Judgment of the Award dated 1.4.2016 passed in MACT Case No. 25 of 2015. 18. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. Send back the LCRs.