JUDGMENT : (Jaspreet Singh, J.) 1. Heard Sri Tarun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Firoz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents no. 5 and 6. Sri Jagjit Singh Sodhi, learned counsel for the claimant-respondents no. 1 to 4 2. The insurance company, as appellants, have instituted the aforesaid appeal against the award dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (South), Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 564 of 2017 whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,69,280/-along with 7% interest from the date of the application till the date of the payment in favour of the claimant-respondents no. 1 to 4 and the said award has been passed against the Insurance Company. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the award has raised a solitary contention. The thrust of the arguments is that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending Gas Tanker bearing No. UP 17 AT 1890, however, though, no appeal has been preferred by the owner and the driver regarding the aforesaid finding but the Insurance Company has escalated the matter on the premise that the driver of the offending Gas Tanker did not have a valid and an effective driving license, inasmuch as, on the date of the accident i.e. 29.07.2017, the driver of the aforesaid Gas Tanker namely Rajesh Kumar did not have the requisite endorsement on his driving license authorizing him to drive a transportation vehicle containing hazardous goods. 4. It is further submitted that a specific issue was framed by the Tribunal to the effect whether the driver of the said tanker had a valid and effective driving license and while answering the same, the Tribunal held that the driver of the aforesaid tanker had a valid license and fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. It was of the view that since the accident did not occur on account of any leakage or as a direct consequence of a hazardous good itself contained in the said tanker, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability. 5. It was of the view that since the accident did not occur on account of any leakage or as a direct consequence of a hazardous good itself contained in the said tanker, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability. 5. It is further urged that the Tribunal completely misdirected itself, inasmuch as, it did not consider that the driver did not have the requisite endorsement on his license regarding the authorization to drive a transportation vehicle carrying hazardous goods and in absence of any such endorsement, it cannot be said that that the driver was authorized, hence, this being contrary to the relevant Rule 9 (3) of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 read with Section 14 (2) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it would indicate that the driver was not authorized which in effect amounts to driving the vehicle without an authority and as such the Insurance Company could not be fastened with the aforesaid liability and moreover the Tribunal has further erred in not even granting the recovery rights which has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice. 6. Per contra, Sri Firoz Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the respondents no. 5 and 6 submits that the vehicle in question was duly insured and the driver had a valid driving license and also noticing the fact that the accident occurred and the death was not on account of the use or consequence of the hazardous goods, therefore, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Tribunal was incorrect. It is also submitted that the driving license of the respondent no. 5 was valid and subsisting, accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the claimant-respondents no. 1 to 4 has submitted that even though the award has been passed in favour of the claimant-respondent nos. 1 to 4 yet because of the subsisting interim order passed in the appeal dated 21.06.2022, not a single penny has been provided to the claimant-respondent nos. 1 to 4 despite they have lost their earning family member and that appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 9. Before adverting to the submissions of the respective parties, certain brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are being noticed hereinafter:- 10. The claimants-respondents no. 8. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record. 9. Before adverting to the submissions of the respective parties, certain brief facts giving rise to the instant appeal are being noticed hereinafter:- 10. The claimants-respondents no. 1 to 4 preferred a Claim Petition No. 564/2017 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (South) Lucknow with the averment that on 29.07.2017 at around 12:30 in the afternoon Ms. Arunima Chandra (the deceased) while moving out from the C.H.C. in District Unnao to attend her field duties was hit by a Gas Tanker bearing No. U.P. 17 AT 1890 and on account of the hit she suffered grievous injuries which led to her death on the spot. It was also stated that she was working on the post of B.L.P. in the office of Chief Medical Officer and was earning a sum of Rs. 15,600/- per month. 11. The driver and owner of the aforesaid offending Gas Tanker filed their separate written statement denying the accident. However, the owner took a plea that the said tanker had a subsisting fitness certificate which was valid till March, 2023 and the national permit was also valid w.e.f. 21st March, 2017 till 20th March, 2022 and the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant-company w.e.f. 24.02.2017 till 23.02.2018 and as such, if at all, any award is made, the same is liable to be satisfied by the Insurance Company. 12. The driver on the other hand in his written statement reiterated the stand as taken by the owner but also took an additional stand that he had a valid and a subsisting driving license. 13. The Insurance Company on the other hand while filing its writing statement denied its liability to honour the award as the driver did not have a valid license. 14. In light of the aforesaid pleadings, the Tribunal framed four issues and after considering the evidence it decided the four issues in favour of the claimants-respondents holding that the accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Gas Tanker bearing No. U.P. 17 AT 1890 which led to the death of Arunima Chandra. It also found that the vehicle had the requisite fitness certificate, permit and the Insurance Policy which was valid for the relevant period. While dealing with issue no. It also found that the vehicle had the requisite fitness certificate, permit and the Insurance Policy which was valid for the relevant period. While dealing with issue no. 3, it held that the license of the driver was valid and since the accident was not caused by the hazardous goods, thus, the liability of the insurer could not be absolved and thereafter considering the issue of compensation, it allowed the claim petition awarding a sum of Rs. 18.69,280/-to the claimants-respondents no. 1 to 4 along with 7% interest per annum. 15. It is this award which is under challenge in the instant appeal on the grounds which have been noticed hereinabove. 16. The only issue which requires consideration is whether the driving license of the respondent no. 5 was valid and as he was driving a Gas Tanker then whether the license ought to have the requisite endorsement authorizing him to drive a vehicle of transportation of hazardous goods and in absence thereof whether the award could be fastened on the Insurance Company. 17. In order to answer the aforesaid issue, it will be appropriate to take a glance at the relevant sections as well as the rules as framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The relevant sections are reproduced as under:- "Section 3. Necessity for driving licence.--(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of Section 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. -------******------------****--------****-------------***-------*** Section 14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.--(1) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. -------******------------****--------****-------------***-------*** Section 14. Currency of licences to drive motor vehicles.--(1) A learner's licence issued under this Act shall, subject to the other provisions of this Act, be effective for a period of six months from the date of issue of the licence. (2) A driving licence issued or renewed under this Act shall,-- (a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years: [***] [Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; (b) x x x (I) x x x (A) x x x (B) x x x x x x x x x -------******------------****--------****-------------***-------*** Section 56. Certificate of fitness of transport vehicles.--(1) Subject to the provisions of sections 59 and 60, a transport vehicle shall not be deemed to be validly registered for the purposes of section 39, unless it carries a certificate of fitness in such form containing such particulars and information as may be prescribed by the Central Government, issued by the prescribed authority, or by an authorized testing station mentioned in sub-section (2), to the effect that the vehicle complies for the time being with all the requirements of this Act and the rules made thereunder: Provided that where the prescribed authority or the "authorized testing station" refuses to issue such certificate, it shall supply the owner of the vehicle with its reasons in writing for such refusal. (2) x x x (3) x x x (4) x x x (5) x x x -------******------------****--------****-------------***-------*** 66. (2) x x x (3) x x x (4) x x x (5) x x x -------******------------****--------****-------------***-------*** 66. Necessity for permits.--(1) No owner of a motor vehicle shall use or permit the use of the vehicle as a transport vehicle in any public place whether or not such vehicle is actually carrying any passengers or goods save in accordance with the conditions of a permit granted or countersigned by a Regional or State Transport Authority or any prescribed authority authorising him the use of the vehicle in that place in the manner in which the vehicle is being used: Provided that a stage carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a contract carriage: Provided further that a stage carriage permit may, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the use of the vehicle as a goods carriage either when carrying passengers or not: Provided also that a goods carriage permit shall, subject to any conditions that may be specified in the permit, authorise the holder to use the vehicle for the carriage of goods for or in connection with a trade or business carried on by him. ------******------------****--------****-------------***-------*** Section 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. ------******------------****--------****-------------***-------*** Section 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability. --(1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which-- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)-- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily 27 [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: Provided that a policy shall not be required-- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee-- (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation. --For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:-- (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier., (3) x x x (4) x x x (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons. 9. 9. Educational qualifications for drivers of goods carriages carrying dangerous or hazardous goods:-[(1) One year from the date of commencement of Central Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Riles, 1993, any person driving a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life shall, in addition to being the holder of a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, also has the ability to read and write at least one Indian language out of those [specified in the VIII Schedule of the Constitution] and English and also possess a certificate of having successfully passed a course consisting of following syllabus and periodicity connected with the transport of such goods:- Period of training Place of training Syllabus 3 days At any institute recognised by the State Government A. Defensive driving Questionnaire Cause of accidents Accidents, statistics Driver’s personal fitness Car condition Braking distance Highway driving Road/Pedestrian crossing Railway crossing Adapting to weather Duration of training for A & B -1st and 2nd day Head-on collision Read-end- collision Night driving Films and discussion B. Advanced driving skills and training (i) Discussion Before starting -----Check list ----Outside/below/near vehicle -----product side ----inside vehicle During driving Before stopping condition After stopping [Night driving (ii) Field test/training -----Correct speed/gear -----Signalling ----lane control ----overtaking/giving side -----speed limit/safe distance -----driving on slopes ---- Safe stopping place, signaling, road width, ----preventing vehicle movement ----wheel clocks -----vehicle attendance ---mandatory lightning requirements -----headlamp alignment -----use of dipped beam] ----1 driver at a time C. Product safety UN Panel Product Information Emergency Procedure -----Un classification -----Hazchem Code ----Toxicity -----flammability ------other definitions -----Tremcards ------CIS/MSDS ------Importance of temperature Pressure, level -----Explosive limits -----Knowledge about equipment -----Communication ----- Spillage handling -----Use of PPE ---- Fire fighting -----First Aid ----Toxic release control -----Protection of wells, rivers, lakes, etc. -----Use of protective equipment ------Knowledge about walves etc. (2) The holder of a driving license possessing the minimum educational qualification or the certificate referred to in sub-rule (1), shall make an application in writing on a plain paper along with his driving license and the relevant certificate to the licensing authority in whose jurisdiction he resides for making necessary entries in his driving license and if the driving license is in Form 7, the application shall be accompanied by the fee [as specified in the Table in rule 32]. (3) The licensing authority, on receipt of the application referred to in sub-rule (2), shall make an endorsement in the driving licence of the applicant to the effect that he is authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature to human life. (4) Alicensing authority other than the original licensing authority making any such endorsement shall communicate the fact to the original licensing authority. Rule 132. Responsibility of the transporter or owner of goods carriage.-- (1) x x x (2) x x x (3) x x x (4) x x x (5) It shall be the duty of the owner to ensure that the driver of the goods carriage carrying dangerous or hazardous goods holds a driving licence as per provisions of rule 9 of these rules." 18. From the conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions, it is clear that insofar as the heavy goods motor vehicles is concerned, the licence issued to such a person is valid for a period of three years. However, where a driver is driving a transport vehicle carrying hazardous goods, for such vehicles, the driver must possess a separate endorsement and the said endorsement has to be renewed from time to time on an application made by the driver concerned as per the provisions and rules framed under the Act of 1988.” 19. Having taken a look at the relevant provisions, now it will be appropriate to take a look at the license which was placed on record by the respondent no. 5 along with documents list bearing Paper No. C-17/1. 20. From the perusal of the aforesaid driving license, it would indicate that the driving license bearing U.P. 86 20130003803 was issued in the name of Rajesh Kumar Son of Chhatrapal on 03.07.2013 and was valid till 02.07.2033 and it also indicates that Rajesh Kumar was authorized to drive, a light motor vehicle and MCWG (motor vehicles with gear). The driver is also authorized to drive a transportation vehicle, however, this endorsement was effective from 22.09.2014. The said driving license has been issued from the office of R.T.O. Hathras, in the State of U.P. 21. The driver is also authorized to drive a transportation vehicle, however, this endorsement was effective from 22.09.2014. The said driving license has been issued from the office of R.T.O. Hathras, in the State of U.P. 21. From the perusal of the aforesaid documents it does not indicate that there is any endorsement for driving a transportation vehicle carrying hazardous goods as required in terms of Section 14 of the Act 1988 read with Rules 9 and 132 framed under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. Thus, from the above, it would be clear that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the driver was authorized to drive a transportation vehicle, however, there is nothing on record to indicate that he was also permitted to drive a transportation vehicle carrying dangerous/hazardous goods. Tankers which carry petrol, gas and other inflammable articles and are permitted to transport such commodities and ply on public roads, the law has formulated certain rules and provisions and only after complying with the same, a vehicle of such category can be driven by a person authorized as per law. The authority or the license to drive a vehicle in a public place is in compliance of the statutory requirement under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A person is entitled to compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act only after establishing that the driver of the offending vehicle was rash and negligent whereas the issue as to who is liable to satisfy the award depends on the condition primarily it is the owner and the driver who is responsible but in view of the insurance cover in terms of Chapter 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the liability is indemnified by the Insurance Company in terms of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 22. 22. Thus, it would be seen that there can be two separate situations; i) where a person may be negligent in driving but at the same time, he must be authorized to drive a particular type of vehicle in accordance with law and the other situation can be where a driver may not be negligent per-se, while driving, but an accident may occur on account of use of the said motor vehicle but even then the driver must not be authorized to drive that particular category vehicle; (ii) The occurrence of an motor accident and the validity of the driving license will impact the liability of the Insurance Company and this aspect has been considered in detail by the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Vs. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 . 23. Whereas the contract of Insurance between the insured and the insurance company is based on ‘Uberrima fides’. It is a contract which has to be complied with in its letter and spirit. 24. Taking note of the aforesaid aspect of the matter and noticing that the driver of the offending gas tanker did not possess the requisite endorsement to drive or use the heavy goods vehicle carrying hazardous/ dangerous goods, indicates that law did not authorize him to drive the said vehicle in a public place. The owner of the gas tanker permitted a person to use the said heavy goods vehicle carrying hazardous/dangerous goods in the public space in violation of the law and it is per se violative of the policy condition. 25. The manner in which the accident occurred may not be necessary to absolve the owner of his liability, but this aspect of the matter has been taken note of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Gautam Filling Station Vs. Munnu Singh & Another; 2016 (34) LCD 1669 . In Paragraphs 26 and 27, it has been held as under:- "26. Thus, if the statutory requirements as noted above are ignored or diluted on the basis of fact of the case or the factum of accident, say that the driver of the vehicle was admittedly negligent and the insurance company is not permitted to raise the defence that such statutory requirements were not fulfilled, it would amount to nullifying the limited protection granted to the insurance company under section 149 of the Act of 1988. 27. 27. In such view of the matter, in my opinion, section 149 provides for statutory protection available to the company, which clearly shows that no sum shall be payable by the insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award and the insurer can defend the action on the ground as provided under section 149 which also includes that it can avoid its liability if the person driving the vehicle was not duly licensed. For this purpose, needless to say that the requirement of section 3 and section 14 of the Act of 1988 and Rule 9 and Rule 132(5) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which have already been noted above and need no repetition, are to be fulfilled or complied with for holding a valid licence." 26. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sibbal Singh Vs. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,, F.A.F.O. (Defective) No. 378 of 2010, decided on 13.08.2012, however, from the perusal of the aforesaid decision, it appears that in case of Sibbal Singh (Supra), though, it does not deal with all the provisions of law yet it also arrives at the same conclusion as noticed in the case of Gautam Filling Station (supra). 27. This Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.Smt. Vimla Devi and others; F.A.F.O. No. 845 of 2006 decided on 27.07.2021 ( 2021 Latest case Law 8677 ALL) had the occasion to consider a similar issue and wherein after taking note of the earlier decisions, it arrived at a finding that even though the driver had a license but since it did not have the requisite endorsement as provided in the Motor Vehicles Act permitting the driver to drive a transportation vehicle carrying dangerous/hazardous goods, hence, the Court partly allowed the appeal and granted the recovery rights to the Insurance Company. 28. Considering the ratio laid in the case of Gautam Filling Station (Supra) and Vimla Devi (Supra) and applying the principles to the facts of the instant case, it would be clear as the day that though the respondent no. 5, the driver of the Gas tanker was authorized to driver a transportation vehicle but there is no evidence to suggest that he had the authorization to drive a transport vehicle carrying hazardous/dangerous goods. 5, the driver of the Gas tanker was authorized to driver a transportation vehicle but there is no evidence to suggest that he had the authorization to drive a transport vehicle carrying hazardous/dangerous goods. It is also not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents nos. 5 and 6 Sri Firoz Ahmad Khan that on the relevant date when the accident occurred i.e. 29.07.2017, the driver did not possess any such authorization nor there was any endorsement to the aforesaid effect of his license. No such material has been brought to the notice of this Court nor it finds place in the records of the Tribunal below. Thus, it can safely be concluded that the driving license of the Gas driver of the gas tanker did not authorize him to driver a transport vehicle carrying dangerous/hazardous goods. 29. Now, the issue arises as to whether the Insurance Company can absolve itself of its liability, however, this is settled in light of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Swaran Singh (supra) where the Apex Court considering the various types of discrepancies in the driving license and how the matter is to be dealt with has been considered in detail and the relevant portion thereof read as under:- “110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is 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) 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. (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. 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 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 wherefor 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. (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. 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 thereunder 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.” 30. In light of the aforesaid decision of Swaran Singh (supra) it would be clear that the Insurance Company cannot absolve its liability absolutely, however, though, the driver had a license, hence, the award is to be satisfied by the Insurance Company qua the claimant-respondent but the appellant-insurance company is entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle (insured). 31. In view of the aforesaid detailed discussions, this Court is of the clear view that the Tribunal has erred in deciding issue no. 3 and fastening the entire liability on the Insurance Company without granting the right of recovery to the insurer. 32. In view of the aforesaid, the award dated 18.11.2021 in so far as it relates to all the findings including the quantum is affirmed with the modification that the Insurance Company shall indemnify the award and shall be at liberty to recover the same from the respondent no. 5 who is the owner of the offending vehicle in accordance with law as provided in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Nanjappan and Others; (2004) 13 SCC 224 . Subject to the aforesaid, the award dated 18.11.2011 is maintained. The appeal is partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. The record of the Tribunal shall be returned expeditiously.