The central legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurer under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act to satisfy the compensation award and recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.

Heard Mr. S.S. Sarma, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. M. Mazumdar, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. None appears on call for the respondents.

2. By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 the appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 30.06.2011 passed by the learned Member, MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati in MAC Case No. 2561/2007.

3. The respondent No.1 is the claimant in MAC Case No. 2561/2007. In the claim petition, the respondent No.1 projected that on 06.09.2007, while he was standing on the side of the road, a motor cycle bearing Registration No. AS-01-AB-8389 which was driven by the respondent No.3 in a rash and negligent manner, had hit him from behind and as a result he sustained grievous injuries on his person. Hence, the respondent No.1 had filed a case claiming compensation. The respondent No.2 is the owner of the said motor cycle. The appellant, who was the opposite party No.1, by filing their written statement, took the usual plea as to the maintainability, the claim being exaggerated and without any basis and the insurer was not liable to pay any compensation until and unless it was proved that the driver has a valid licence and the conditions of the policy was not violated. By filing additional written statement, the appellant had stated that the respondent No.3, who was driving the motor cycle had a driving licence in respect of Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), which was not for valid driving motor cycle and, as such, denied their liability for violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. The respondents No.2 & 3 had also filed their written statements claiming that the respondent No.3 had a valid licence.

4. On the basis of pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed the following issues for adjudication:

1. Whether claimant’s husband, Sri Khagen Chandra Das, sustained injuries in the alleged road accident dated 06.09.2007 involving the vehicle bearing Registration No. AS-01/AB-8389 and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle?

2. Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation and, if yes, what will be the quantum of compensation and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable?

5. The respondent No.1 examined himself as the sole witness. The appellant examined the Assistant Officer of the District Transport Office, Kamrup, who had deposed that the driving licence No. NT-655/07/K in the name of Dipankar Medhi was only for driving LMV, the licencee was not authorized to drive motor cycle and the heavy motor vehicle. He had proved the driving licence register in original as Exhibit.-A. The respondents No.2 & 3 did not give any evidence and did not prove the driving licence of respondent No.3.

6. In respect of issue No.1, it was decided in favour of the claimant by holding that the deceased had sustained grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. In respect of issue No.2, the learned Tribunal had arrived at a finding that the respondent No.2 was authorized to drive only LMV but he was not authorized to drive the motor cycle. It was further held that since the driver in the present case was entitled to drive only LMV, he did not have an effective driving licence for driving motor cycle and, as such, there was certainly a violation of the policy conditions with regard to clause of driver in the policy. It was also held that when there was a violation of terms and conditions of the policy, the insurer can avoid the liability under the policy to indemnify the insurer. However, by holding that the violation of policy condition being a matter between the insured and the insurer, that cannot affect the right of the third party or any other person, who is entitled to realization the compensation from the insured, directed the award to be paid by the appellant. The appellant was given liberty to recover the