G.P. Mittal, J.

1. These two Appeals arise of the common judgment in suit No.429/2010 titled Asha v. Bhikhari Yadav & Ors. and Suit No.473/2010 titlted Asha & Ors. v. Bhikhari Yadav & Ors. The claims relate to death of one Dharmesh, who was aged about 25 years and one Sumit (Dharmesh’s son) who was aged about four years at the time of the accident which took place on 19.04.2009. During inquiry before the Tribunal, it was claimed that Dharmesh was working as a driver with Mrs. Mamta Dutt and was getting a salary of Rs. 7,000/- per month. In the absence of any cogent evidence as to the deceased’s income, the Tribunal took the minimum wages of a skilled worker as the deceased’s income and computed the loss of dependency as Rs. 11,29,680/-. After adding notional sums under conventional heads an overall compensation of Rs. 12,29,680/- (including the interim compensation) was awarded. Regarding death of Sumit, while relying on Lata Wadhwa & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., (2001) 8 SCC 197 and a judgment of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Farzana & Ors.2009 ACJ 2763, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- (including the interim compensation).

2. The Appellant Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. contested the claims by way of filing written statements and raised defence under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the M.V. Act) that the insured was guilty of breach of conditions of policy and thus the Insurance Company could avoid the liability.

3. At the time of hearing the Appeals, challenge to the impugned award is made only on the ground that in view of the breach of the policy conditions the Appellant was not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle which admittedly was a commercial (transport) vehicle. First Respondent Bhikhari Yadav’s driving licence collected by the police at the time of filing of Accident Information Report (AIR) was got verified by the Appellant from Kamrup Transport Authority, Guwahati and it was established that the driving licence was not issued by the said Authority. It is contended that the owner and the driver failed to produce any other driving licence of First Respondent as also the permit of vehicle number DL-1G-2715 and thus, the Appellant Insurance Company established breach of the policy conditions and was not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.

4. It is urged that even if the Appellant was directed to satisfy the award, it should have been allowed to recover the compensation awarded from the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.

5. Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is extracted hereunder:-

149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks-

(1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) [or under the provisions of section 163A] is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments.

(2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment of award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case