R.K.GAUBA, J.

1. The background facts and the issues raised in these two similarly placed appeals under Sections 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) were noted at some length in the common order that was passed on 25.02.2016 as under:-

“It is stated that on 16.03.2009 an accident occurred involving motor vehicle described as water tanker bearing registration no.DL-1GB-8196 (the offending vehicle) driven by second respondent (Lal Singh) in the area of DC Office Mehrauli Badarpur Border resulting in injuries being suffered by Shiv Kumar. The offending vehicle is concededly owned by Sheela Rani (appellant in MAC no.701/2012). Admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured against third party risk with National Insurance Company Ltd. (first respondent in MAC appeal no.701/2012) for the period covering the date of accident (16.03.2009).

On the claim petition (registered as suit no.616/2010) brought by Shiv Kumar (on 20.07.2009), notices were issued by the motor accident claims tribunal (the tribunal). Both, Lal Singh & Sheela Rani though served and having appeared, failed to put in a contest, not even filing a written statement and instead chose to suffer the proceedings exparte w.e.f. 20.09.2010. The record would show that the insurance company issued a notice under Order 12 Rule-8 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to Sheela Rani and Lal Singh on 26.07.2011 and on that basis sought to be exonerated on the ground that the driving license shown by the driver Lal Singh had been found, upon verification, to be a fake document. The insurance company led evidence to this effect by examining Shiv Raj Kanwal (R3W1). Sheela Rani joined the inquiry again on the same date (04.08.2011) and examined herself as (R2W1), while conceding that she had not verified the driving license from the concerned authority, deposing that she had taken the driving test of Lal Singh through her husband before engaging him as a driver. The tribunal, by judgment dated 12.10.2011 in claim petition (no.616/2010) of Shiv Kumar rejected the defence of Sheela Rani and found breach of terms and conditions of the policy and while calling upon the insurance company to pay the compensation, allowed it to recover the same from Sheela Rani.

It is the abovenoted direction of the tribunal which is challenged by Sheela Rani in MAC appeal no.701/2012. The appellant (Sheela Rani) places reliance on the judgment in National Insurance Company V. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 and contends that there was no fundamental breach and that since she had shown due diligence, rule of main purpose would apply and, therefore, insurer cannot be given right to recover.

The other appeal (MAC appeal no.388/2014) has come up for hearing alongside the above appeal of Sheela Rani and presents a similar state of affairs concerning the same set of party respondents and respecting the same offending vehicle, though with a different result on the plea of the insurance company regarding breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The said other appeal (MAC Appeal no.388/2014) was taken up for hearing with the first above said appeal (MAC Appeal no.701/2012) at the instance of the learned counsel for Sheela Rani (the insured/owner of the offending vehicle) as he sought to point out that, in stark contrast, the insurer has been denied recovery rights by the tribunal accepting the same defence plea taken there.

The file of the said appeal shows that on 02.10.2010, at about 08:00 AM, the motor vehicle described as water tanker bearing registration no.DL-1GB-8196 (the offending vehicle), the same one as involved in the first above mentioned case, again driven by Lal Singh, the same very driver, who was impleaded as principal tort-feasor in the above mentioned first case was involved in another motor vehicular accident in front of house of Chhote Lal, Gali No.2, Babu Colony, Mandi Pahari, New Delhi, resulting in injuries being suffered by Beera Devi @ Meera Devi (first respondent