( 1 ) THIS appeal arises from the judgment and award dated 24. 5. 1999 passed by M. A. C. T. , Bangalore City in M. V. C. No. 2222 of 1997.

( 2 ) ON the request of the learned counsel for the respondents-claimants with agreement of counsel for appellant, this appeal is being heard and disposed of on merits.

( 3 ) THE Tribunal after having recorded the findings on all issues in favour of the claimants (which we need not go in detail) awarded a total sum of Rs. 16,56,640 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of application to the date of deposit of the amount. The Tribunal held that both the owner and insurer of the vehicle in question are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. Feeling aggrieved from the award of the Tribunal, the insurer has come before this court by way of appeal.

( 4 ) WE have heard Mr. H. G. Ramesh, learned counsel for the insurer, insurance company, as well as Mr. F. S. Dabali, counsel for the respondents-claimants as well as Mr. S. P. Shankar, counsel for the respondent owner.

( 5 ) MR. H. G. Ramesh, very vehemently contended that as admittedly in the present case, the vehicle in question that caused the accident was being driven by a person who had no licence to drive transport vehicle and had a licence to drive a light motor vehicle. When he was driving without a licence permitting him to drive a transport vehicle then there is a breach of the condition of the policy in terms of section 149 (2) (a) (ii ). Mr. Ramesh submitted that insurance policy very clearly provides that the insurance company will be liable to pay compensation only if the driver is having an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. Mr. Ramesh submitted that as the driver at the time of the accident was only having a licence to drive a light motor vehicle, i. e. , light motor vehicle other than the transport vehicle, there was breach of terms of the policy and the person driving, in other words, it may be said to have no effective driving licence to drive maxi cab. Learned counsel contended that maxi cab is a transport vehicle. Mr. Ramesh submitted that the insurer has produced all the documents like driving licence and policy.

( 6 ) THIS contention of Mr. Ramesh has hotly been contested by Mr. F. S. Dabali as well as by Mr. S. P. Shankar.

( 7 ) IT has been contended on behalf of the respondents that on the date of accident, the person who was driving no doubt, had a licence which provided for light motor vehicle. Learned counsel contended that light motor vehicle's licence has been there with the person driving the vehicle involved and as law provides it includes even the light motor transport vehicles, therefore, firstly, the person who was driving the vehicle was having the licence and the vehicle was covered and the insurer is also liable to pay the compensation amount as held by the Tribunal.

( 8 ) IT was further submitted that the defence of the insurer is very specific. The insurer has not proved his case and failed to establish the case of breach of the conditions and it was contended that the defences available to an insurer is of 'breach of the conditions of the policy as indicated in section 149 (2) (a)' or a further defence may be that policy was procured by insured by misrepresentation or fraud and no other defence is available. It was further contended by the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents that the dispute between the owner and insurer should not really affect the right of claimants to receive compensation and the law when it provides for insurance of the motor vehicle being made compulsory, it has been not for the benefit of the insurer or insured, but it is with the object that the third party, in the sense of injured or the heirs of the deceased in the accident, may not suffer. That the remedy provided, by getting insurance of motor vehicle compulsory is to make remedy or award, granted in favour of the claimants, more effective and ex