JUDGMENT Ravi V. Hosmani, J. - Though this matter is listed for admission, with consent of learned counsel on both sides, it is heard finally and disposed of by this judgment. 2. "Xxx xxx xxx" 3. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the XVII Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (hereinafter, referred to as 'Claims Tribunal' for brevity) in M.V.C.No.7423/2011 disposed of on 18.06.2012. The challenge is on the aspect of negligence and quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 4. For the sake of convenience, parties shall be referred to in terms of their status before the Tribunal. 5. Brief facts of the case leading to filing of this appeal are that on 04.10.2011 at about 4:30 p.m. when B. Channaveeraiah was riding his TVS Excel bearing registration No. KA-04-X-8654 on the left side, in front of Sonnappanahalli BESCOM Office, NH- 7, Bettahalasuru Cross Service Road, Bengaluru slowly and cautiously by observing traffic rules and regulations, at that time, a Lorry bearing registration No. KA-09/5162 came in a high speed, rash and negligent manner without observing the traffic rules and regulations and suddenly dashed against Channaveeraiah, due to which he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Columbia Asia Hospital, however he died on the way to the said hospital. The Chikkajala Traffic police registered a case against the driver of the lorry in Crime No.115/2011 for the offences punishable under Section 279, 304(A) of IPC. Contending that they have lost their bread earner, petitioner-claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-. 6. In response to the notice, respondent No.1 did not appear and he was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company appeared through his counsel and filed written statement and denied the averments made in the claim petition. Further it denied the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses incurred by the petitioners, cause of accident, age, occupation, income, injuries sustained by the deceased. 7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Claims Tribuna. Further it denied the relationship of the petitioners with the deceased, funeral and obsequies ceremony expenses incurred by the petitioners, cause of accident, age, occupation, income, injuries sustained by the deceased. 7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Claims Tribuna. (i) Whether the petitioners prove that on 04.10.2011at about 4.30 p.m. in front of Sonnappanahalli BESCOM Office, NH7, Betthalasuru Cross Service Road, Bengaluru the accident occurred was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.KA-09-5162 and resulting in the death caused to one. B. Channaveeraiah, who is husband as well as father of the petitioners? (ii) Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, what amount and from whom? (iii) What order or award? 8. In support of their claim, claimants examined the wife of the deceased as PW1 and one Ravi, S.D.A., of the BESCOM as PW2 and got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. Respondent No.2 has not led any oral evidence but only produced the Insurance Policy. 9. The Claims Tribunal answered issue No.1 in the affirmative. Issue No.2 is answered holding that the petitioners No.1 and 2 are entitled to receive Rs.17,40,400/- together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the respondents. Issue No.3 is answered as per the final order. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer submitted that the Driver of the lorry C.M. Prakash had got driving licence bearing No.KA-04- 20020006699 issued on 21.06.2002 by RTO, Yelahanka. It expired on 16.07.2011. The accident occurred on 04.10.2011. It was submitted that though the licence was renewed on 07.10.2011, there was no driving licence as on the date of accident. Hence, as the driver of the lorry was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, the Insurer was absolved of its liability due to breach of terms of the policy. Without prejudice to the above contention, on quantum it was submitted that the Claims Tribunal considered the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.16,500/- though there was no evidence to support it. Hence, the appellant sought interference with the award. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the driver of the offending lorry had a driving licence to drive the lorry valid upto 16.07.2011. It was renewed on 07.10.2011, within three months from the date of expiry. Hence, the appellant sought interference with the award. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that the driver of the offending lorry had a driving licence to drive the lorry valid upto 16.07.2011. It was renewed on 07.10.2011, within three months from the date of expiry. It was submitted that this was not a case of non-possession of licence but only a case of non-renewal of licence. Referring to the decision in M.F.A. No.103680/2015 c/w MFA No.103681/2015 disposed of on 08.02.2019, it was submitted that this Court had an occasion to deal with the issue wherein it was held that the Insurer would be liable. On quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal it was submitted that the claimants produced the official memorandum issued by the BESCOM Ex.P11, Certificate issued by the BESCOM as Ex.P12 and the salary certificate of the deceased as Ex.P13 etc., which clearly established that the deceased was working as a linemen with BESCOM and his total monthly income was Rs.12,693/- + Rs.3,807.90 = Rs.16,500.90. Hence, the Claims Tribunal was fully justified in taking the same as the monthly income of the deceased for assessing the compensation. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal. 1) Whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in holding the Insurance Company liable to satisfy the award, even though the driving licence of the driver of the Insured vehicle, C.M. Prakash had expired on 16.07.2011 and therefore there was no valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident i.e., 04.10.2011? 2) Whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.16,500/- for assessing the compensation? 3) What order? 13. Since, the challenge by the Insurance Company is firstly, with regard to its liability due to non-possession of licence on the date of accident by the driver of the offending lorry and secondly, on quantum with regard to the monthly income of the deceased, the occurrence of the accident on 04.10.2011 at 4.30 p.m. between TVS Excel bearing registration No.KA-04-X-8654 and lorry bearing registration No.KA-09-5162 in front of Sonnappanahalli BESCOM Office, NH-7, Bettahalasuru Cross Service Road, Bengaluru is not in dispute. That B. Channaveeraiah the rider of TVS Excel sustained fatal injuries and died on the way to hospital is also not in dispute. That B. Channaveeraiah the rider of TVS Excel sustained fatal injuries and died on the way to hospital is also not in dispute. His occupation with BESCOM is also not in dispute. The only dispute is with regard to the liability and monthly income of the deceased. Point No.1 14. Though the insurer has taken up a contention that the driver of the lorry did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the lorry on the date of the accident, it has not lead evidence in support of its contention. This is despite having filed an application under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act which was allowed by the Claims Tribunal on 30.05.2012. As per the pleadings in the memorandum of appeal, the driving licence has been renewed on 07.10.2011. Therefore, the only question to be answered is, whether this is a case of non-possession of licence or a mere case of non-renewal of licence, which is no more res-integra. A Coordinate Bench of this Court of which one of us (Nagarathna J.) was a member, in M.F.A.No.103680/2015 c/w MFA No.103681/2015 disposed of on 08.02.2019 at Dharwad Bench, on a detailed examination has held as follows: "20. The first point of controversy is with regard to the liability of the insurer to satisfy the award. On this aspect having regard to Section 149(2)(ii)(a) of the Act, the Insurance Company can avoid its liability if a driver of a vehicle is not duly licenced or if on the fatal date the vehicle has been driven by a person who has been disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence and have driven the vehicle during the period of its disqualification. The crucial expression in the form of a defence that could be taken by an insurer is "not duly licenced." If a person who is not duly licenced, drives a vehicle and causes an accident, then the Insurance Company can avoid its liability. The expression 'driving licence' is defined in Section 2(10) of the Act to mean the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. The expression 'driving licence' is defined in Section 2(10) of the Act to mean the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description. Section 3(1) deals with the necessity for driving licence and it states that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than motor cab or motorcycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under Section 75(2) unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. 21. Section 5 says that no owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 to drive the vehicle. Section 4 deals with the age limit in connection with driving the motor vehicles. The grant of driving licence is dealt with in Section 9 and the form and contents of licences to drive is dealt with in Section 10. Section 11(1) states that any person holding a driving licence to drive any class or description of motor vehicles, who is not for the time being disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence to drive any other class or description of motor vehicles, may apply to the licensing authority having jurisdiction in the area in which he resides or carries on his business in such form and accompanied by such documents and with such fees as may be prescribed by the Central Government for the addition of such other class or description of vehicles to the licence. Section 14 which deals with currency of licences to drive motor vehicles inter alia states in sub-section (2) that a driving licence issued or renewed under the Act shall, in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effected for a period of three years. 22. Section 15 has been referred to by learned counsel for the Insurance Company which deals with renewal of driving licence. 22. Section 15 has been referred to by learned counsel for the Insurance Company which deals with renewal of driving licence. Sub-section (1) of Section 15 states that any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry. The proviso states where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal; that means in other cases, the renewal will take place from the date of its expiry. The other provisions of Section 15 are not relevant for the purpose of this case. The aforesaid provisions have been considered and interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh and after dealing with a catena of judgments, the summary of its findings are noted in paragraph 105 as under: "105. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are 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) 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. 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. (iv) The insurance companies are, 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 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. (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 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 Sections 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 subsection (4) with proviso thereunder 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." 23. Clause 6 of the summation is relevant. It states that 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 should 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. A reading of the same would imply that every breach of the policy condition regarding licence would not ipso facto, be so fundamental so as to enable the Insurance Company to avoid its liability. The breach with regard to the condition of possessing a driving licence must be so fundamental so as to have contributed to the cause of accident. Thus, there must be a nexus between the absence of a valid and effective driving license by the driver of the offending vehicle and the accident. The same would imply that the driver of the offending vehicle is not duly licenced to drive the vehicle and in absence of possessing the skill to drive a vehicle has driven the same in a rash and negligent manner. The same would imply that the driver of the offending vehicle is not duly licenced to drive the vehicle and in absence of possessing the skill to drive a vehicle has driven the same in a rash and negligent manner. It could also be a case where the driver is disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence and during the period of disqualification, has driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident. Therefore, the aforesaid interpretation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is in the context of the expression used in Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act. 24. Applying the aforesaid decision to the instant case, it is noted that the driver of the offending vehicle had the licence to drive a non-transport vehicle for the period from 24.07.1998 to 23.07.2018. He also had the authorization to drive a transport vehicle for the period from 03.02.2009 up to 02.02.2012. The licence to drive a nontransport vehicle was renewed on 02.06.2012. It is in the interregnum i.e., on 05.04.2012 the accident occurred. Could it be inferred that the breach in the policy condition was so fundamental so as to have resulted in the driver of the offending vehicle causing the accident? We do not think so. This is not a case where the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess any licence at all to drive any vehicle; neither is it a case where the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess an authorization (transport endorsement) to drive a heavy goods vehicle at all (which is the offending lorry in the instant case). This is a case where the authorization to drive such a transport vehicle had expired on 02.02.2012 and it was subsequently renewed on 02.06.2012 i.e., four months later. But on the date of the accident that is on 05.04.2012, he had not got his licence renewed. This is a case of a non-renewal of a license and not a case of not possessing a license to drive a heavy goods vehicle. A non-renewal of the licence is totally different from the case of non-possession of the licence or driving a vehicle on being disqualified. This is a case of a non-renewal of a license and not a case of not possessing a license to drive a heavy goods vehicle. A non-renewal of the licence is totally different from the case of non-possession of the licence or driving a vehicle on being disqualified. In the latter two cases, the Insurance Company may have to be exonerated of its liability if the aforesaid reasons had a nexus with the occurrence of the accident as that is precisely what has been stated in the defences of the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act. But insofar as nonrenewal of a licence is concerned or absence of a transport endorsement to drive a particular transport vehicle but otherwise having a license to drive such a vehicle i.e., a non-transport vehicle, it cannot be equated to a case of nonpossession of a licence or a case where a driver who was disqualified from driving the vehicle drove the same. It is only in the latter two cases where the insurer can avoid its liability. 25. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of K.G.Srinivasamurthy Vs. Habib Khathun, (2002) ACJ 557 has observed after referring to Section 15 of the Act that, if the application for renewal is made within thirty days after the date of expiry of the licence, the same shall be renewed from the date of its expiry. However, if the application is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. The above said provisions also show that the licensing authority has no power to refuse renewal of licence unless the application is filed beyond the period of five years from the date of expiry in view of the proviso to Sub-section (4) to Section 15. That when the application for renewal is more than five years after the driving licence has ceased to be effective, the licensing authority may refuse to renew the driving licence, unless the applicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the test of competence to drive referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 9. That when the application for renewal is more than five years after the driving licence has ceased to be effective, the licensing authority may refuse to renew the driving licence, unless the applicant undergoes and passes to its satisfaction the test of competence to drive referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 9. Therefore, if the application for renewal is made within five years after the expiry of the driving licence for renewal, the authority cannot refuse to renew the licence if the prescribed fee is paid and if only the application is made beyond the period of five years from the date of expiry of the driving licence, the applicant has to undergo and pass to the satisfaction of the licensing authority the test of competence to drive referred to in Sub-section (3) of Section 9. Thus if a person has not made an application for renewal of his license within a period of five years from the date of expiry of the license, such a driver entails a disqualification to drive the vehicle and has to undergo a fresh driving test and obtain a fresh driving license. 26. In the said case also, the offending driver was holding a driving licence which was renewed. However, there was delay in getting the licence renewed as the application had been made more than 30 days after the expiry of the period of licence, the renewal was made from the date of application and not from the date of expiry of the licence. Therefore, the question considered was as to whether the owner of the vehicle had handed over the vehicle to a person who was not holding any licence. 27. The Co-Ordinate Bench has held after referring to various judgments that even if there is no renewal endorsement, it cannot be said that the person driving the vehicle was not a licensed driver. It is not a case where the insured entrusted the vehicle to a person who does not hold a driving licence rather admittedly the driver to whom the vehicle was entrusted by the insured was having a valid driving licence duly granted by transport authority. It is not a case where the insured entrusted the vehicle to a person who does not hold a driving licence rather admittedly the driver to whom the vehicle was entrusted by the insured was having a valid driving licence duly granted by transport authority. Merely because of expiry of the period of licence and the omission of the driver to get the licence renewed, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that there is breach of condition of policy for which insurance company can be exonerated from the liability. The driver was authorised to drive a transport vehicle and the vehicle was entrusted by the insured to the licensed driver and, therefore, the insurance company cannot absolve itself from the liability. Therefore, it is clear that mere fact that the driver of the vehicle had not got his driving licence renewed on the date of the accident and got it renewed subsequently would not amount to breach of condition of the policy as it cannot be said that there was violation of the condition of the policy. Further, in view of the above findings, the Division Bench also held that the question of ordering any recovery of the amount by the insurance company from the insurer did not arise. 28. In the instant case, the driver of the offending vehicle was qualified to drive the vehicle and he had also the transport endorsement upto 02.02.2012 and the said endorsement was renewed subsequently on 02.06.2012 up to 31.05.2015. As noted already above, it was in the interregnum that is on 05.04.2012 that the accident occurred. Therefore, having regard to the interpretation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the context of the defence of a insurer having regard to the Section 149 of the Act, it is held that the Insurance Company herein has not succeeded in its defence and therefore cannot be exonerated of its liability to satisfy the awards. In view of the same, the insurer cannot be absolved of its liability. Hence, the point for consideration is answered against the appellant- Insurer. Point No.2: 15. In support of the claim petition the claimants have produced Salary Certificate of the deceased marked as Ex.P13. The gross salary indicated therein is Rs.12,693/-. Out of the same, Rs.150/- has to be deducted towards Professional Tax. Hence, the point for consideration is answered against the appellant- Insurer. Point No.2: 15. In support of the claim petition the claimants have produced Salary Certificate of the deceased marked as Ex.P13. The gross salary indicated therein is Rs.12,693/-. Out of the same, Rs.150/- has to be deducted towards Professional Tax. Since the Annual Income would be below taxable limit no Income Tax would be deductible. While calculating loss of dependency, the Claims Tribunal has before deducting Professional Tax added 30% towards future prospects. Thereafter, by deducting 1/3rd towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 13' arrived at total dependency of Rs.17,00,400/-. If the Professional Tax is deducted before adding future prospects, the monthly income would be Rs.16,305.90 rounded off to Rs.16,306/-, after adding the amount towards future prospects, if the total loss of dependency is recalculated, it would be Rs.16,306/-, less 1/3rd (personal expenses) x 12 x 13 = Rs.16,95,564/-. But the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.17,00,400/-. The difference is only Rs.4,836/- which cannot be said to be either excessive or exorbitant. Hence, we decline to interfere with the same. The amount awarded towards other heads is undisturbed. 1) Loss of dependency Rs.17,00,400/- 2) Loss of love and affection Rs.10,000/- 3) Loss of consortium Rs.10,000/- 4) Funeral and obsequies charges and transportation of dead body Rs.10,000/- 5) Loss of estate Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.17,40,400/- In the result, the point No.2 is also answered against the appellant. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The amount in deposit to be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal. The appellant/insurer to deposit the compensation amount with upto date interest, if not already deposited before the Tribunal, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment. Office to transmit the original record forthwith. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A. No.3/3013 stands dismissed. Parties to bear their respective costs.