Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.

1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act) arises out of award dated 25th March, 2003 passed by the 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal’), by which the claimant/mother of the victim, dying in a road accident, has been awarded compensation. By the impugned award, the Tribunal has held the insurer Insured (Owner) and Driver jointly and severally liable to pay Rs. 60,000/- to the mother of the deceased and Rs. 2,500/- to Lenkeshwar, father of the deceased along with interest @ 9 per cent from the date of application.

2. The award has been challenged by the appellant-insurance Company to the extent it fastens liability, jointly and severally with the Owner and Driver, to pay the amount of compensation. The submission of learned Counsel for appellant is that the Tribunal clearly recorded the finding that the Driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid and effective licence to drive the heavy vehicle bus. which resulted in accident Not only this, it is contended that the Tribunal categorically held in para-18 of the award that in the absence of valid and effective driving licence held by the Driver of the vehicle and consequent proof of breach of policy conditions, yet the insurance Company is liable to indemnify the ensured by paying compensation to the third party and recover the same from the Owner, but while passing the award, in para-28, joint and several liability without any right of recovery has been ordered.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for responsible Owner and Claimant submit that as the vehicle was duly insured, the alleged breach that the driver was not holding valid licence would not absolve the Insurer from its statutory liability to satisfy the award by paying compensation to the claimants. While learned Counsel for the owner submits that even in a case where breach of condition of policy that the vehicle was driven by a person having no driving license is proved, yet Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award only because the vehicle was duly ensured and premium was regularly paid, learned counsel for the Claimant submits that issue of breach of condition may be an aspect of dispute as between the Insurer and the Insured but the statutory scheme of the MV Act fastens statutory liability on the Insurer to satisfy the award at the first instance and then to claim recovery against the Owner with which the Claimant may not have any concern.

4. Learned Counsel for the parties have cited and relied upon several authorities and judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court, this High Court and other High Court touching upon the issue not only with regard to the liability but also on the legal position as to whether in a case where Insurance Company is not held to be liable, because of breach of policy, still it would be its liability to satisfy the award by paying the compensation to the Claimants and then recover the same from the Owner.

5. The factual position obtaining on record of the present case is crystal clear.

Be it noted the Owner and the Driver both remained ex parte before the Tribunal. In appeal, hover, the Owner entered appearance Driver has chosen not to appear despite service of notice.

6. Before the Tribunal, no driving licence was produced by any of the parties as the Owner and the Driver remained ex parte. The Insurance Company came out with the case that the Driver was having no licence at all. The claimants also have not produced any material on record before the Tribunal or even before this Court to prove that the Driver was possessed of licence much less proof of the fact that the Driver was having valid and effective licence. The Tribunal has taken note of the challan papers filed by the police before the criminal Court wherein the police registered a criminal case against the Driver of the vehicle on the allegation that the vehicle was being driven withou