The insurer must satisfy the compensation award despite the insured's breach of policy conditions unless it fundamentally contributed to the accident.

ORDER :

1. The present First Appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is preferred by the appellant – original claimant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 08.12.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bodeli in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.39 of 2021.

2. Brief facts of the case are as under :

2.1 The brief fact of the present appeal is such that on 15.12.2014, the claimant was riding his motorcycle No.GJ-6-AQ-4683 along with his friend and going towards Bhesavai. When they reached near the place of accident, opponent No.1 came riding motorcycle No.GJ-6-DM-5192 in rash and negligent manner and dashed with the motorcycle of the claimant. As a result, the accident took place and claimant sustained severe injuries. Therefore, offence to that effect is registered before the Karali Police Station vide FIR being I-C.R.No.31 of 2014. The claimant has filed aforestated claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-. The learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment and award dated 08.12.2021 has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.1,90,868/-. Hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties.

4. Pressing for the order of pay and recover, learned advocate Mr.Dwivedi would submit that learned Tribunal after recording the finding that opponent No.1 was not holding the licence or there was absence of licence on the day of accident was required to follow the law laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh – 2004 ACJ 1 (SC) and to pass the order of pay and recover and he urges to pass said order in this appeal.

5. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Raval appearing for the other side referred to para 10.5 of the impugned judgment and award and would submit that Insurance Company has done all that it can do to prove that opponent No.1 was not holding valid and effective driving licence on the day of accident. He would submit that opponent No.1 was examined, as also RTO was also examined. Learned Tribunal has thoroughly discussed this issue to believe that since it is successfully established by the Insurance Company that driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence, Insurance Company has established defense of breach of terms and conditions of the policy which has been rightly appreciated by the learned Tribunal. He would submit to dismiss this appeal.

6. At the outset, having referred to para 10.3 of the impugned judgment and award, it appears that learned Tribunal has comprehensively discussed the issue of licence and held that the driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. The learning licence issued to the driver twice has been expired and yet he drew the vehicle on unfortunate day. Learned advocate Mr.Dwivedi fairly submits that he has no say on the aspect assessment made by the learned Tribunal in para 10.3 on the issue of licence, but he referred to judgment of Swaran Singh (supra).

7. While summing up the judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Swaran Singh (supra), held as under :

“The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows:

(i) 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 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.

(ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in