JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. The insurer assails the award dated 27.1.2018 passed by learned District Judge-cum-M.A.C.T.(I), Balangir in M.A.C. No.142 of 2011. 2. One Jadu Jagadala died in a motor vehicle accident. Claimants-respondent nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Sec.166 of M.V. Act, 1988 before learned M.A.C.T. (I), Balangir stating inter alia that on 2.7.2011 at about 1.30 P.M. while Jadu Jagadala was travelling along with others in a bus bearing registration No.OR-17-F-2075 near village Uchbahali chhak on Manamunda-Sagada road, due to rash and negligence driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, the bus met with an accident as a result of which he succumbed to the injuries on the spot. He was working as a helper. He was aged about 21 years. He was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. He was the sole bread earner of the family. Due to his untimely death, the family received a serious setback. 3. The opposite party no.1, owner of the offending vehicle, was set exparte. Opposite party no.2, the insurer filed written statement denying the liability. It was pleaded that the accident took place due to the fault of the deceased. The deceased was unemployed. The amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is high and excessive. The opposite party no.1 was plying the vehicle without valid permit. The driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving license. Thus, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal struck six issues. To substantiate the case, the claimants had examined two witnesses and on their behalf nine documents had been exhibited. No evidence was adduced by the opposite party no.2. Learned Tribunal came to hold that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. The claimants are entitled to compensation. It awarded Rs.6,34,800/- towards compensation and directed the insurer, opposite party no.2, to pay the same along with interest @6% per annum from 12.9.2011, i.e. the date of filing of the claim application. 5. Heard Mr. M. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and Mr. J. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2-claimants. 6. The main grounds of challenge are two folds. The driver of the offending vehicle has no driving license at the time of accident and the offending vehicle, OR-17-F-2075, had no valid permit. 7. 5. Heard Mr. M. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company and Mr. J. Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2-claimants. 6. The main grounds of challenge are two folds. The driver of the offending vehicle has no driving license at the time of accident and the offending vehicle, OR-17-F-2075, had no valid permit. 7. The core question that arises for consideration before this Court as to whether the insurer is exonerated from its liability, if a driver of the offending vehicle had no driving licence at the time of accident? 8. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) AIR SC 1531, the apex Court made an in-depth analysis and summarized the principles and held: "105. (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) 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 driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, have 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 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 duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. To avoid its liability towards 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 duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, 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 wherefore would be on them. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance 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 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 insured 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. 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. 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 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 proviso there under and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against 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. Thus the irresistible conclusion is that 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 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 duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. 10. The next question crops up the liability of the insurer, if the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit to ply on the road. 11. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma and others, (2004) 8 SCC 517 , the apex Court held that a person without permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed on a better pedestal vis-a-vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. Plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction. Therefore, in terms of Section 149(2) defence is available to the insurer on that aspect. The acceptability of the stand is a matter of adjudication. The question of policy being operative had no relevance for the issue regarding liability of the insurer. It was further held that considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. The acceptability of the stand is a matter of adjudication. The question of policy being operative had no relevance for the issue regarding liability of the insurer. It was further held that considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. In some cases the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. For the purpose of recovering the amount paid from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing court concerned as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the offending vehicle shall furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the executing court shall take assistance of the Regional Transport Authority concerned. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle i.e. the insured. 12. Thus, the inescapable conclusion is that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. It is open to the insurer to file an application for recover of the amount before the learned Tribunal. 13. In view of the foregoing discussions, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.