JUDGMENT : V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. The appellant is second respondent in M.V.O.P. No. 1138 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Addl. District Judge, at Visakhapatnam, and the respondents are the Petitioner/Claimant and 1st respondent in the said case. 2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred as they are arrayed in the claim application. The Claimant has filed Claim Petition under section 166 of MV Act of r/w 455, for claiming compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor Vehicle accident occurred on 26.08.2006. 3. The case of the claimant is that he is earning Rs. 3,000/- per month by doing agriculture labour works and that on 26.08.2006 at about 6 pm, the claimant along with her husband were returning from their field at Butchiyyapeta Village, at that time an auto bearing No. AP-31-Y-3845 driven by the 1strespondent in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed to the injured and that the claimant received grievous injuries. 4. The 1st respondent remained ex parte before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent- insurance company filed a counter denying the claim and further pleaded that the driver of the auto is not having any kind of driving license on the date of accident. Therefore, the Insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed following issues: (i) Whether the pleaded motor vehicle accident occurred on 26.08.2006, resulting in injuries and disability to the claimant? (ii) Whether the accident was due to the fault of driver of auto bearing No. AP-31-Y-3845? (iii) Whether the auto bearing No. AP-31-Y-3845 belongs to R1 and stood insured with R2 insurance company on the date of accident and if so, whether the policy covers the risk of claimant? (iv) Whether the driver of auto bearing No. AP-31-Y-3845 was having valid driving license at the time of accident? (v) Whether claimant is entitled for compensation and if so, to what amount and what is the liability of respondents? (vi) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the Petitioner, her self-examined PW-1 and also examined the Doctor who treated claimant as a PW-2 and got Exs.A1 to A7 on behalf of the respondent insurance company RW-1 to RW-3 are examined and marked Exs.B1 to B5 and marked Ex.X1. 7. (vi) To what relief? 6. On behalf of the Petitioner, her self-examined PW-1 and also examined the Doctor who treated claimant as a PW-2 and got Exs.A1 to A7 on behalf of the respondent insurance company RW-1 to RW-3 are examined and marked Exs.B1 to B5 and marked Ex.X1. 7. After considering evidence on record the Tribunal has given finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Respondent No. 1 and in the said accident the claimant received injuries and the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the petitioner, aggrieved against the said Order, the insurance company filed the present appeal the Learned counsel for appellant contents that the driver of the Vehicle is not having any kind of driving license at the time of accident, but the Tribunal give a finding that the insurance company is also liable to pay the claim along with the 1st respondent. 8. The leaned counsel for claimant argued that the trial court rightly decreed the claim by granting Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Petitioner towards compensation. 9. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the Tribunal committed any error in giving finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Owner-cum-driver of the auto bearing No. AP-31-Y-3845 and compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable? 10. In order to prove the case of the petitioner, the petitioner examined herself as a PW-1 and Exs.A1 to A7 and also relied on evidence of PW-1. In cross-examination of PW-1 nothing was elicited from PW-1 to discredit the testimony of PW-1. The evidence of PW-1 coupled with Exs.A1 and A4 clearly goes to show that the negligence is on the part of the driver of the auto bearing No. AP-31-Y-3845. As per Exs.A1 and A4 and so also as per evidence of PW-1 there is a negligence on the part of driver of the auto bearing No. AP-31-Y-3845 driven by the 1st respondent No positive evidence is placed by the 2ndrespondent to disprove the contents of charge sheet. 11. In Bheemla Devi vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1725 (SC) the Apex Court held that: “It was necessary to bear in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not possible to be done by the claimants. 11. In Bheemla Devi vs. Himachal Road Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1725 (SC) the Apex Court held that: “It was necessary to bear in mind that strict proof of an accident caused by a particular bus in a particular manner may not possible to be done by the claimants. The claimants are merely to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt could not have been applied.” 12. There is no dispute by other side about the involvement of the Vehicle i.e. driver of the auto bearing No. AP-31-Y-3845 driven by the 1st respondent. The claimant established the identity of Vehicle involved in the accident is auto bearing No. AP-31-Y-3845 driven by the 1strespondent, upon the considering material on record, the Tribunal has correctly appreciated the evidence on record and recorded finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending Vehicle and the said finding was good, there is no need to interfere with the said finding. 13. The contention of the appellant is that at the time of accident, the 1st respondent driver of the auto is not having any kind of driving license to drive the auto. In order to prove the claim the driving license of the driver of the auto is not yet filed by the claimant and no oral or documentary evidence produced by the claimant to show that on the date of accident, the driver of the auto is having driving license at the time of accident. On the other hand. the respondent No. 2 Insurance Company examined the Junior Assistant in R.T.A. office, Anakapalli as PW-2. As per the evidence of PW-2, the driver of the auto is not having any kind of driving license Another important point is the 2nd respondent summoned the 1st respondent driver of the auto and examined as RW-3 i.e. RW-3 clearly admitted in his evidence that at the time of driving of the auto, he had no driving license and the accident was occurred due to his fault. 14. Therefore, the own evidence of the 1st respondent i.e. owner-cum-driver of the auto coupled with evidence of RW-2 clearly supports the contention of the insurance company that the 1st respondent is not having any kind of driving license at the time of accident. 14. Therefore, the own evidence of the 1st respondent i.e. owner-cum-driver of the auto coupled with evidence of RW-2 clearly supports the contention of the insurance company that the 1st respondent is not having any kind of driving license at the time of accident. Even though the Tribunal give a finding in its order that simply, the driver of the vehicle has not possessed any driving license that itself is not absolved to say that the 2ndrespondent is not held responsible to pay any compensation to the petitioner, ‘The said finding given by the Tribunal is contrary to law. 15. The Tribunal has not taken into the consideration of own admissions made by the owner-cum-driver of the auto i.e. RW-3. The Tribunal also did not take into the consideration of evidence of Junior Assistant in R.T.A. office i.e. RW-2. Therefore, the Tribunal committed a grave error in giving finding that the insurance company is also personally liable to pay the compensation, therefore the said finding is liable to be set aside. Here in the present case the 1st respondent is owner of the auto and he is also driver of the auto, the same is admitted by the 1st respondent himself. The compensation granted by the Tribunal is not at all disputed by the insurance company. As per the evidence of PW-2 Doctor, the claimant received three injuries and all the injuries are grievous in nature and the claimant also underwent an operation to the said grievous injuries. 16. It was held by Supreme Court of India in a case between Singh Ram vs. Nirmala and Others, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 191. Wherein the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court held that it is necessary to note, as observed by the Tribunal, that the owner did not dispose in evidence and stayed away from the witness box, He produce a license which was found to be fake. Another license which he sought to produce had already expired before the accident and was not renew within the prescribed period. It was renewed well after two years had expired. The applicant as owner had evidently failed to take reasonable care, since he could not have been unmindful of facts which were within his knowledge. It was further held that the direction by the Tribunal, confirmed by the High Court to pay and recover cannot be faulted. 17. It was renewed well after two years had expired. The applicant as owner had evidently failed to take reasonable care, since he could not have been unmindful of facts which were within his knowledge. It was further held that the direction by the Tribunal, confirmed by the High Court to pay and recover cannot be faulted. 17. Here in the present case the owner-cum-driver of the auto i.e. 1st respondent did not contest the matter and he was ex-parte, in the Tribunal. 18. Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid license 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 license 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 defenses available to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act. The pedestrian do not know whether the driver of opposite vehicle is having driving license or not. Here the owner-cum-driver of auto is not having driving license to drove the auto at the time of accident and caused injuries to the claimant therefore he is liable to pay compensation. Here the injured a third party, and auto is insured with 2nd respondent and the policy is also on force at the time of accident. 19. The respondent No. 1 owner-cum-driver of the auto failed to take reasonable care and drove the auto in a negligent manner, here the claim petitioner is third party. As per the contention of insurance company, the crime vehicle auto is insured with 2nd respondent insurance company and the policy is also on force. Therefore, in view of the above settled legal position, the insurance company should first satisfy the award at first instance and there after recover the amount from the owner/driver of the auto i.e. 1st respondent by filing execution petition before the Tribunal below without filing separate suit. 20. Therefore, in view of the above settled legal position, the insurance company should first satisfy the award at first instance and there after recover the amount from the owner/driver of the auto i.e. 1st respondent by filing execution petition before the Tribunal below without filing separate suit. 20. In the result the appeal is partly allowed, the order dated 14.12.2011 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 1138 of 2007 is modified as the insurance company should first satisfy the award of first instance and there after recover the amount from owner-cum-driver of auto i.e. 1st respondent by filing execution petition before the Tribunal below without filing separate suit. 21. The insurance company is directed the deposit the balance of amount if any, within one month before the Tribunal and there after recover the entire claim amount from the owner-cum-driver of the auto i.e.1st respondent by filing an execution petition, before the Tribunal without filing any independent suit and on deposit the Tribunal is directed to release the amount strictly in accordance with its order. There shall no order as to costs. 22. As sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal, shall stand closed.