The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a 'fundamental breach' that contributes to the cause of the accident to avoid liability, as interpreted from the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and relevant case law.

JUDGMENT :

NAJMI WAZIRI, J.

1. This appeal impugns the award of compensation dated 28.07.2016 passed by the learned MACT in Suit No. 607/14 on the ground that liability has been fastened upon the insurer to pay the compensation, whereas it should have been upon the owner and driver because there was a fundamental breach of policy condition.

2. It is the appellant's case that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a requisite valid driving licence i.e. there was no endorsement on the driving licence, of the driver to drive a hazardous-goods carrying vehicle.

3. The accident happened on 07.12.2013. It was the case of the owner of the vehicle that the driver of the vehicle had been trained at a Government-licenced motor driving training school, namely M/s. Om Sai Motor Driving Training School, Noida, U.P. and a certificate had been issued in favour of the driver on 23.02.2013. It was valid upto 22.04.2014.

4. In this regard, the learned Tribunal has observed and reasoned as under:

"9. Respondent No. 2 got examined Shri Ankit Tyagi, Instructor, Om Sai Motor Driving Training School, Noida, U.P. as R2W1 in its defence. He has proved certificate issued from Dy. Transport Commissioner Authority, Meerut, U.P. as Ex. R2W1/A which authorized Om Sai Motor Training School to operate driving training school. In this regard, he has also placed on record copy of Gazette Notification issued by Govt. of U.P. as Mark A. He has deposed that respondent No. 1/Dharmender Kumar was given a certificate Ex. R2W1/B by their training school for driving vehicles carrying hazardous goods.

20. Respondent No. 2/owner of offending vehicle has got examined Shri Ankit Tyagi, Instructor at Om Sai Driving Training School, Noida, U.P. as R2W1 in its defence. R2W1 Shri Ankit Tyagi has deposed that driver/R-1 had taken training for driving hazardous goods from their Q Training School and has proved certificate Ex. R2W1/B in this regard. Perusal of certificate Ex. R2W1/B reveals that training programme was conducted on 21.02.2013 and certificate was issued on 23.02.2013 which was valid upto 22.02.2014.

23. From the evidence adduced, it emerges that offending vehicle came under the category of transport vehicle meant to carry dangerous or hazardous goods. The driver was having a valid DL for driving heavy.-transport vehicle but it is evident that there was no endorsement on the said DL as required under proviso of Section 14 (2) (a) MV Act. The question which is to be determined is that whether the absence of endorsement would entitle the Insurance Company to avoid its liability to pay the compensation.

24. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Others, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), which is a Full Bench judgment, Hon'ble Apex Court had noted that 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 O 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. However, it was that insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Motor Vehicle Act in terms of Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the said Act. The breach of the policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Even where the insurer is able to prove breach 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 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 rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach"