JUDGMENT B.M.Shyam Prasad, J. - This appeal is filed by the Insurer in MVC No.32/2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Itinerary Court, Shikaripura ['Tribunal' for short] being aggrieved by the direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,91,500/-determined as compensation payable to the first to third respondents the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum and recover such amounts from the fourth respondent - the insured and the owner of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-15-J-3849. The Tribunal has issued this direction while partly allowing the claimants the respondents' claim petition in MVC No.32/2010 by its Judgment and Award dated 03.03.2012. 2. The petition in MVC No.32/2010 is filed by the parents and a sibling of the deceased, Sri.Prakash Basavarajappa, asserting that the deceased was driving his motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-15-J-3849, when the fourth respondent, who was rash and negligent in driving the motorcycle bearing registration No.KA-27-L-7428 dashed against their son's motorcycle. Their son was fatally injured and he breathed his last when he was being shifted to the Hospital by an ambulance. The fourth and fifth respondents being the driver and the owner of the motorcycle bearing No.KA-27-L-7428 were arrayed as first and second respondents, and the insurer of this motorcycle bearing No.KA-27-L-7428 (the appellant) is arrayed as the third respondent. Insofar as the insurer-appellant, its essential defence was that the fourth respondent did not hold a driving licence and as such it would not be liable. 3. The Tribunal, while answering the additional Issue as regards whether the insurer-appellant is able to prove violation of a policy condition because the fourth respondent did not hold a valid licence, has found, on appreciation of evidence tendered by the fourth respondent and the pillion who was riding with him, that it is established that the fourth respondent did not hold a driving licence and therefore, there is breach of a policy condition. However, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of ' National Insurance Co., Ltd., Bangalore v. Smt. Anjali and Others, (2011) 4 KCCR 3228 ,the Tribunal has directed the insurer-appellant to pay the compensation determined with interest and recover from the owner insured, the fifth respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, Sri. However, relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of ' National Insurance Co., Ltd., Bangalore v. Smt. Anjali and Others, (2011) 4 KCCR 3228 ,the Tribunal has directed the insurer-appellant to pay the compensation determined with interest and recover from the owner insured, the fifth respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, Sri. O. Mahesh, submits that the Tribunal, in answering the additional issue as aforesaid, has found categorically, that the driver of his motorcycle did not hold a licence and therefore there is breach of a policy condition. The Tribunal, in the light of this finding, has erred in fastening the liability to pay and recover the compensation determined as payable to the claimants- respondents. The learned counsel emphasizes that it is only in those cases where a driver holds an invalid driving licence or where a driving licence is not renewed, the Courts have granted the exceptional relief of 'pay and recover'. The present case does not warrant such a direction and therefore, this Court must interfere. 5. The learned counsel for the claimants respondents submits that in similar cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, where it was contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving without a licence and the Insurer is able to establish the same, has directed the Insurer to 'pay and recover'. The learned Counsel relies upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ' Pappu and others v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and another, (2018) AIR SC 592 as well as ' Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co., Ltd., and others, (2019) AIR SC 3128 . The learned Counsel canvasses that in Pappu's case supra, a similar defence was taken on behalf of the insurer inasmuch, it was contended that the driver of the offending truck did not hold a valid driving licence, and it was concluded that such defence is established. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the Insurer to 'pay and recover'. Therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. 6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the Insurer to 'pay and recover'. Therefore, no interference is called for by this Court. 6. The questions that arise for consideration are: A. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it could be opined that the insurer appellant has established that the fourth respondent was riding the motorcycle in question without a licence and that this tantamount to a fundamental breach of a policy condition', and B. If such breach is established, a direction to the insurer appellant to pay and recover would be justified in law. 7. In the present case, the fourth respondent, the driver of the offending motorcycle, and the pillion rider, Sri. Nagappa Karagi, have examined themselves as RW.1 and RW.2 respectively, and they have been cross-examined. They do not dispute that, at the relevant time, the fourth respondent was driving the subject motorcycle and Sri. Nagappa Karagi was on the pillion. The insurer appellant relies upon their evidence to assert that it is established that the fourth respondent did not hold a licence to drive and therefore there is a breach of an indisputable policy condition There cannot be any dispute that permitting a person without licence to drive would be in breach of a policy condition. . 8. The fourth respondent, RW.1, in his cross examination, has stated that he had obtained licence to drive a two wheeler from Haveri Transport office, but he lost such licence two years prior to the accident. He had not retained the photocopy of the licence and therefore he does not have the number of the licence, and because he does not have the number, he is unable to secure a certified copy thereof. Significantly, he has also deposed that he has never made any effort to seek a certified copy of the licence which he asserted, had obtained. The pillion rider, Sri. Nagappa Karagi, RW.2, admits that his younger brother was the owner of the offending motorcycle and the fourth respondent is his relative. In response to a specific query as to whether the fourth respondent held a valid driving licence to drive the motorcycle as on the date of the accident, he has deposed that he does not know. This evidence is significant and the significance is further emphasized by the fact that the owner of the offending motorcycle has not chosen to examine himself. This evidence is significant and the significance is further emphasized by the fact that the owner of the offending motorcycle has not chosen to examine himself. These circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, demonstrates on the scale of preponderance of probabilities that the fourth respondent did not hold a driving licence to drive at the time of the accident, a breach of a policy condition relatable to section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. The consequence of breach of a policy condition relatable to section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the liability of an insurer to a third party, including the liability of the insurer to 'pay and recover' is no longer res integra insofar as this Court, in view of the decision of a full Bench of this Court in MFA No. 30131/2010 disposed of on 12.05.2020. It has been held Per Justice. B V Nagarathna as follows: "36. Thus, on a reading of Section 149, it becomes clear that when third party risks are involved or when the victim of the accident is a third party, such risk being compulsorily covered under sub-section (1) of Section 147, any exclusion in the policy must be suitably interpreted having regard to the main purpose for which an insurance contract is entered into. In Swaran Singh, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has enumerated the aforementioned twin tests in the above context. It is only when both the tests are satisfied that the insurer could be permitted to pay and recover from the insured as per the proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 147 otherwise, no pay and recovery order could be made and the insurer has to satisfy the award. 37. Thus, what follows is that, in regard to third party rights, the insurer can defeat such rights under Section 149(2)(a) by proving a breach of the condition of the policy and further, proving that the same is a fundamental breach. In such an event, the insurer can only mitigate its liability and the insured would be liable to satisfy the judgment vis- -vis the insurer who would have satisfied the claim of the third party in the first instance. Therefore, the insurer cannot defeat a third party claim by any exclusion in the policy having regard to the four corners of Section 149(2)(a). Therefore, the insurer cannot defeat a third party claim by any exclusion in the policy having regard to the four corners of Section 149(2)(a). It can only mitigate its liability by seeking recovery from the insured on proof of the exclusion clause as per the twin tests enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This is the object of Section 149 (4) and the proviso thereto which contemplates pay and recovery order to be made against the insurer who has been notified in a claim proceeding instituted by a third party under Section 149(1) of the Act." Insofar as what constitutes a fundamental breach in cases where the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold a driving licence at the time of accident, it has been held as follows: " .. Even after proving breach of a policy condition regarding the valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period on the part of the insured, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid his liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches is/are so fundamental as found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. This is having regard to the "rule of main purpose" or "main purpose rule" i.e., even if there is a proof of the driver of a motor vehicle not being duly licenced at the time of the accident, the said fact must be a cause for the accident. In other words, the breach was so fundamental as to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The doctrine of fundamental breach has been incorporated in section 149 of the Act by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in order to give effect to the main purpose room. Thus, the exclusion clause or the defence of an insured so as to avoid liability has been read down to the extent to which it is inconsistent to the main purpose of the contract. The above is the second test to be applied. Thus, the exclusion clause or the defence of an insured so as to avoid liability has been read down to the extent to which it is inconsistent to the main purpose of the contract. The above is the second test to be applied. Thus, there has to be a finding of fact, as to, whether, the owner or the insured had taken reasonable care." It follows that an insurer can avoid liability to indemnify an insured-owner only if it establishes that there is a breach of a policy condition and that such breach is so fundamental so as to have caused the accident, in the sense that, insured - owner had taken reasonable care to avoid untoward. 10. In the light of the evidence of the two witnesses as discussed supra, this Court cannot conclude that the owner, in entrusting the motorcycle to his elder brother (the pillion rider) and the fourth respondent (the driver of the motorcycle) who did not have valid licence, had taken reasonable care to prevent any untoward and that this failure has resulted in the accident. The full Bench has further enunciated that the insurer would be liable to pay the compensation determined, and recover such amount from the owner insured even if it succeeds in establishing the two conditions as discussed, and the relevant paragraph reads as follows: "Having regard to Section 149(1) r/w section 149(7) whenever a case falls under Section 149(2)(a) and the same is successfully established or proved by the Insurance Company, as per the twin test laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh, nevertheless, the insurer of Insurance Company is liable to satisfy award vis- -vis a third party and is entitled to recover from the insured. This is irrespective of, the policy being an Act policy in terms of Section 147 pertaining to compulsory coverage of risks of third parties and other classes of persons stated therein a policy covering other risks by specific contract being entered into in that regard and where additional premium is paid by the insured i.e., a contractual policy." For the foregoing, there is no reason for interference with the direction by the Tribunal to the insurer appellant to pay to the claimants respondents, compensation of Rs.1,91,500/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of the disposal, and recover such amount from the owner insured of the offending motorcycle. The appeal is therefore dismissed. The amount in deposit in this appeal be transferred to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shikaripura, for disbursement to the claimants respondents.