JUDGMENT : SUBHASIS DASGUPTA, J. 1. The appeal along with connected application is pending for hearing since 2011. Learned advocate for appellant/insurance company submits with all fairness that the appeal may be disposed of for a short point based on law having involved in this case and in the interest of securing expeditious disposal lower Court records may not be necessary. 2. Learned advocate for the respondents rendering support to the stand, raised by appellant, earnestly submits that since the point urged may be set at rest without resorting to any extensive hearing, the appeal may be disposed of right now. 3. Upon perusal of the records, we are of considered view that the appeal along with connected application may be conveniently disposed of without waiting for the lower Court records to come. Thus with the consent of the parities, the appeal is taken up for hearing today. 4. The challenge in this appeal is against the judgment and order dated 28th June, 2011, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 3rd Court, Alipore in MACC No. 25/07 awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,41,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till the realisation of the entire awarded sum. 5. Tribunal Judge elaborately has dealt with factual circumstances in details while granting the award, but for the sake of decision of this appeal, reference of some revealing facts may be of highest significance. 6. Victim, taxi driver by profession, suffered death on 17.08.2007 at about 3.20 PM on the Strand Road near Howrah Bridge after being struck by the offending vehicle bearing No.WB-03A/6195 (Tata 407). Victim suffered serious fatal injuries and in consequence thereafter he succumbed to his injuries on the same day in hospital. 7. The respondents/claimants being dependants of the deceased victim (who are widow, minor sons and parents of the victim) filed the claim case under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act seeking compensation for the loss, they actually suffered. 8. Tribunal after collection evidence of the witness together with the documents, marked Exhibits, found that the accident was occurred by reason of involvement of the offending vehicle leading to the death of the deceased victim and awarded compensation to the tune, as indicated hereinabove. 9. 8. Tribunal after collection evidence of the witness together with the documents, marked Exhibits, found that the accident was occurred by reason of involvement of the offending vehicle leading to the death of the deceased victim and awarded compensation to the tune, as indicated hereinabove. 9. The appellant/insurance company filed written statement before the Tribunal denying all material allegations levelled against it and proceeded to put up defence accordingly. 10. Learned advocate for appellant/insurance company submits that the offending vehicle having violated the terms and conditions of insurance policy under Section 149 (2) of the M.V. Act, the insurance company cannot be foisted with the liability to indemnify the claims. Thus, according to the appellant/insurance company, at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle had a licence authorising him to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport), but despite owning driving licence for light motor vehicle, the driver deliberately had driven the vehicle, which was a transport vehicle. The point raised by the appellant/insurance company simplicitor is targeted to challenge the validity, inadequacy, effectiveness and inappropriateness of driving licence, held by the driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident, so as to repudiate and/or frustrate the award of Tribunal, upon proof of breach of condition of insurance policy. 11. The respondents/claimants supporting the award of the Tribunal submits that the inadequacy and/or validity of the driving licence of the offending vehicle at the time of accident together with disqualification of driver though can be taken as a ground of defence, but the same is not so strong enough to repudiate the award, granted already by the Tribunal. 12. The solitary point thus raised by the appellant/insurance company requiring decision in this appeal, which we are supposed to answer, is whether the defectiveness or inadequacies of the driving licence together with disqualification of driver can frustrate a legitimate award, granted by the Tribunal to dependent family members of the deceased victim, who suffered a road traffic accident by reason of involvement of the offending vehicle. To answer the issue, the provision of Section 163A of the M.V Act may be adverted to, which postulates that " the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer shall be liable to pay in the case of death or permanent disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle, compensation, as indicated in the Second Schedule, to the legal heirs or the victim, as the case may be". Proof of involvement of the offending vehicle at the time of road traffic accident is sine qua non to establish a claim case under Section 163A of the M.V. Act. 13. The Tribunal after collection of evidence of PW 1 together with the documents, marked as Exhibit1 to 4, reached to a definite finding that the deceased victim met with a road traffic accident by reason of involvement of the offending vehicle leading to his death. This point inevitably goes unchallenged even in this appeal. 14. Admittedly the offending vehicle had valid insurance coverage at the time of accident. 15. Compensation was decided holding the deceased victim (a taxi driver by profession) with income of Rs. 3000/- per month at the time of accident and with application of suitable multiplier of 18, the compensation was ascertained to Rs. 4,32,000/- after deducting 1/3 of the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses. Together with this, the widow of the deceased victim was allowed Rs. 9,500/- as funeral expenses, loss of consortium and loss of estate. The awarded sum is not the subject matter of challenge in this case, what has already been deposited with the Registrar General of this Court pursuant to the order of this Court dated 20th December, 2011. 16. The owner of the offending vehicle did not contest the case before the Tribunal and in exercise of the authority granted to appellant/insurance company under Section 170 of the M.V. Act, neither the owner, nor the driver of the offending vehicle was examined in this case to prove the breach of condition of insurance policy, available under Section 149(2) of M.V. Act. 17. 17. The point surfacing breach and/or violation of the condition of insurance policy under Section 149(2) of the M.V. Act, revealed from alleged driving of a transport vehicle by the driver owning licence to drive light motor vehicle (non-transport) contrary to the terms of insurance policy, and thereby claiming exemption of insurance company from its liability to indemnify claimants may be set at rest by lending support from a decision of the Apex Court delivered in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh and others reported, in 2004 3 SCC 197 wherein it was held that even in cases, where the insurance Company was able to put a good defence under Section 149(2) of the MV Act, it was upon the Insurance Company to first pay the claimants of the victim, and thereafter recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle. The ratio of the judgment, summarised at paragraph 110 of the said judgment may be quoted herein-below. "110. (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 163-A 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. 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 defences raised in the said proceedings but must also establish "breach" on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof where for 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. (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 fulfil 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. (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. (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. 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 there under 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." 18. The Apex Court in the case of Swaran Singh and Ors. (supra) has enunciated that even where the insurer was 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, it would not be proper to suggest that the Insurance Company would be able to avoid its liability towards the insured. 19. The liability to pay compensation under Section 163A of the M.V. Act is casted upon the owner of the motor vehicle, or the authorised insurer in case of proof of death or primary disablement due to accident arising out of the use of the motor vehicle. Once the involvement of the offending vehicle at the time of road traffic accident is satisfactorily established and believed by the Tribunal, the liability to pay compensation by the owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer comes automatically into operation. The legislative intent is not that the owner of the motor vehicle shall pay the compensation first to the dependants of the deceased victim, and in case of failure of the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation, the authorised insurer shall pay the compensation. The legislative intent is not that the owner of the motor vehicle shall pay the compensation first to the dependants of the deceased victim, and in case of failure of the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation, the authorised insurer shall pay the compensation. The use of the word "or" in between the two phrases like "owner of the motor vehicle or the authorised insurer" makes it abundantly clear that any one of the two may pay the compensation to the dependants of the deceased victim meeting road traffic accident on meeting two different contingencies. The first option comes into operation, when offending vehicle has no coverage of insurance as in the case of vehicle having no insurance policy, and the 2nd option shall come into play necessarily to cases having sufficient coverage of insurance policy. The instant appeal under reference is with the coverage of insurance. 20. The ratio of the judgment in Swaran Singh and Ors. (supra) has further succinctly settled that in a particular case, where insurer is able to prove a breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his disqualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to escape its liability towards the insured, unless such breach or breaches are so fundamental in nature having effect of contribution to the case of the accident. In the instant appeal there left nothing to reveal that for disqualification of driver possessing driving licence to ply light motor vehicle, and further for a transport vehicle having driven by a driver with faulty driving licence, the accident was occurred for its active contribution, and it was so fundamental and patent in nature that it would operate as a good defence to repudiate the claim for award. More so driving of a transport vehicle in spite of holding a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle (non transport) would not make itself so fundamental and patent in nature causing deliberately contribution to the cause of the accident. The appellant/insurer in the given circumstances of the case is not remediless and the manner of resorting to remedy was specifically laid down in the case of Swaran Singh and Ors. The appellant/insurer in the given circumstances of the case is not remediless and the manner of resorting to remedy was specifically laid down in the case of Swaran Singh and Ors. (supra) clarifying that to establish the proposition 'Pay and Recover', the money found due to the insurer could be recoverable on a certificate being issued by the Tribunal to the collector in the same process as required under Section 174 of the Act, as arrears of land revenue. The ratio of the decision leading to a proposition 'pay and recovery' was further re-enforced by the Apex Court in a recent decision reported in the case of Shamanna and Another vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited., (2018) 9 SCC 650 21. The appellant/insurance company is under obligation to indemnify the award first irrespective of the inadequacies/inappropriateness/defectiveness of the driving licence, held/possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. After indemnifying the award, the appellant/insurance company can very well take recourse to recovery from the owner of the vehicle. 22. The appeal is dismissed. With the disposal of this appeal, the connected application stands disposed of. 23. It is brought to our attention by the learned advocate for the appellant/insurance company that a sum of Rs. 4,16,500/- has already been deposited with the Registrar General of this Court which has been lying invested with the bank in an interest earning scheme. Liberty is given to respondents to approach the Registrar General of High Court for withdrawing the amount upon furnishing bank particulars of claimants, held individually, within two (2) weeks from this order, and if such approach is made the Registrar General will please to take steps for releasing the amount upon satisfaction of the identity of the claimants/respondents from the bank within two (2) weeks thereafter from the date of such approach. After liquidation of the awarded sum to the claimants together with the interest at the prescribed rate by the Tribunal, the statutory deposit may, however, be permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant/insurance company and Registrar General shall pass necessary order releasing the statutory deposit after adhering to the direction indicated hereinabove. 24. Urgent certified copy of this order if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance with requisite formalities. I agree. - Harish Tandon, J.