JUDGMENT : 1. As all these appeals filed by the Insurance Company arise out of same accident that took place on 18.11.2012, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. As per averments made in the claim petition on 18.11.2012, injured persons namely Dharmendra Gajalwar, wife-Sushma Gajalwar along with their minor daughter-Ku. Aaditi Gajalwar were returning to their home on motorcycle bearing registration No.CG04-CX-9488. However, on the way, non-applicant No.1 Sanjay Tandi / driver of the Motorcycle bearing registration No.CG04-KA-1604 (hereinafter called as 'offending vehicle) by riding the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the said motorcycle of claimants, as a result of which, claimants fell down and sustained grievous injuries over their bodies. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant No.2- Shyam Tandi and insured with non-applicant No.3- Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 3. On account of injuries sustained by the claimant- Dharmendra Gajalwar, a Claim Petition No.95/2014 was filed by him under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till its realization inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, claimant- Dharmendra Gajalwar, was aged about 45 years and was earning Rs.23,250/- per month by working as Deputy Manager Commercial in Uniworth Company. However, the learned 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, C.G., vide impugned award dated 22.01.2016, after considering the evidence available on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.3,15,000/- to the claimant- Dharmendra Gajalwar with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened the liability upon the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Similarly, on account of injuries sustained by the claimant- Sushma Gajalwar, a Claim Petition No.97/2014 was filed by her under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.4,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till its realization inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, claimant- Sushma Gajalwar, was aged about 40 years and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing stitching work. However, the learned 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, C.G., vide impugned award dated 22.01.2016, after considering the evidence available on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.31,500/- to the claimant- Sushma Gajalwar with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened the liability upon the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Likewise, on account of injuries sustained by the claimant- Ku. Aaditi Gajalwar, a Claim Petition No.96/2014 was filed by her through legal guardian under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.3,75,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of application till its realization inter alia pleading that at the time of accident, claimant- Ku. Aaditi Gajalwar, was aged about 11 years and was studying in class 7th. However, the learned 3rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, C.G., vide impugned award dated 22.01.2016, after considering the evidence available on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.43,000/- to the claimant-Ku. Aaditi Gajalwar with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization and fastened the liability upon the non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 jointly and severally. 4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that he is not challenging the quantum part, but confines his argument only to liability part. He submits that at the time of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving licence to ride the offending vehicle, which is a fundamental breach of policy conditions. He also submits that for proving the above fact, Insurance Company has examined NAW-2 S.L. Mehta, Assistant Manager, Oriental Insurance Company, who has specifically stated that at the time of accident, driver of the offending was not having valid and effective driving licence and after investigation, final report (Ex.P-1) has also been filed by the police against the non-applicant No.1-Sanjay Tandi for the offence under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 3/181 of Motor Vehicle Act for not having any valid and effective licence. He also submits that after the accident, NAW-1 Purshottam Sahu, Head Constable, seized offending vehicle, RC book and Insurance Policy from non-applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle vide Exs.P-3 & P-4, but no driving licence has been produced by the non-applicant No.1. He also submits that after the accident, NAW-1 Purshottam Sahu, Head Constable, seized offending vehicle, RC book and Insurance Policy from non-applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle vide Exs.P-3 & P-4, but no driving licence has been produced by the non-applicant No.1. Therefore, in these circumstances, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and the learned Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability upon Insurance Company/non-applicant no.3. Alternatively, he submits that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company and the claimants are the third party, then in the given facts and circumstances of the case, order of pay and recover may be passed in these cases. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants, while admitting that no separate appeal has been filed by them against the impugned awards, supports the impugned awards and submits that the Tribunal, after considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, has rightly fastened liability upon Insurance Company along with driver and owner of the offending vehicle, which needs no interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. So far as the question of liability is concerned, the Insurance Company in its written statement has pleaded that the offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle without having any valid and effective driving licence and for proving the said fact, Insurance Company has examined (NAW-2 S.L. Mehta), Assistant Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, who has stated in his evidence that at the time of accident, offending vehicle was insured with Insurance Company from 11.01.2012 to 10.01.2013 as per Ex.D-1(C). He has also stated that after the accident, investigation was conducted by Insurance Company wherein it was found that the non-applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle, which amounts to breach of policy conditions and for this reason, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. He has also stated that in absence of valid and effective driving licence, Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act was also added in the criminal case in addition to the Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC against the non-applicant No.1 Sanjay Tandi. He has also stated that in absence of valid and effective driving licence, Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act was also added in the criminal case in addition to the Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC against the non-applicant No.1 Sanjay Tandi. Supporting the evidence of NAW-2 S.L. Mehta, NAW-1 Purshottam Sahu, Head Constable, I.O., has stated that during investigation, he had seized the offending vehicle, R.C. Book and Insurance Policy (Ex.D-1(C) from nonapplicant No.1- Sanjay Tandi vide seizure memos (Exs.P-3 & P-4), but at that time, non-applicant No.1 Sanjay Tandi, driver had not produced his driving licence. He has also stated that as the non-applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle failed to produce the valid and effective licence, Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act was also added in the final report (Ex.P-1). Moreover, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte and did not file written statement nor produced any oral and documentary evidence before the Tribunal and before this Court also, even after service of notice, they did not appear. It is pertinent to mention here that, had the non-applicant No.1/Sanjay Tandi held the driving licence, then certainly he would have produced the same during investigation or before the Court. 8. Thus, in view of the evidence of NAW-2 S.L. Mehta, NAW-1 Purshottam Sahu, coupled with the documents' seizure memos Exs.P- 3 & P-4 and final report Ex.P-1, it is clear that at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1/driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there was breach of policy conditions by non-applicant No.1 Sanjay Tandi and the Tribunal was unjustified in fastening the liability upon the Insurance Company. Thus, it is held that since the Insurance Company has fully discharged its duty while proving that on the date of accident, there was breach of policy conditions by driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, it deserves to be and is hereby exonerated. 9. As regards the payment of compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Swaran Singh, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 has held as under:- “110. 9. As regards the payment of compensation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Swaran Singh, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 has held 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. 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. (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 t 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. 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. 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 0 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 insure 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.” 10. Reiterating the judgment of Swaran Singh case (supra), in (2018) SCC 650 (Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited), it is held by the Supreme Court as follows: “6. As per the decision in National Insurance Co. Reiterating the judgment of Swaran Singh case (supra), in (2018) SCC 650 (Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited), it is held by the Supreme Court as follows: “6. As per the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , onus is always upon the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence and that there was breach of policy conditions. Where the driver did not possess the valid driving licence and there are breach of policy conditions, “pay and recover” can be ordered in case of third-party risks. The Tribunal is required to consider “as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver ... does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case”. 7. The Supreme Court considered the decision of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 in subsequent decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 , wherein this Court held that: (SCC p. 705, para 5) “5. The decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 has no application to cases other than third-party risks and in case of third-party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised, to recover the same from the insured.” 11. Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the principle of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above referred matters and further considering the fact that at the time of 1 accident, offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company and that the claimants are third party, I direct the non-applicant No.3/insurance company to pay the compensation amount first to the claimants in all the appeals and then recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle i.e. nonapplicant Nos.1 & 2, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. 12. In the result, all the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are allowed in part to the extent indicated herein above. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall intact.