S. Siri Jagan, J.

The appellant is the Insurance Company in OP(MV) No. 745/03 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The OP was filed by respondents 1 to 3 herein, who were the dependants of one Madhavan Nair, claiming compensation for the death of Madhavan Nair, who died in an accident caused by the negligent driving of a vehicle owned by the 4th respondent and driven by the 5th respondent. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, awarded a total amount of Rs.1,03,400/- as compensation and directed the Insurance Company to satisfy the award. The appellant Insurance Company is challenging that part of the award, whereby the Insurance Company was directed to indemnify the 4th respondent for the compensation payable to respondents 1 to 3.

2. The contention of the appellant is that the charge sheets against the driver of the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle show that the driver did not have a valid licence to drive the vehicle and the owner was negligent in allowing the driver without a licence to drive the vehicle. Therefore, there is clear violation of the policy conditions, in which event, the insurance company is liable to be exonerated from liability. It is also submitted that even assuming that as against the third party, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation, the insurance company is entitled to the right of recovery of the compensation paid by them to the claimants, from the 4th respondent owner of the vehicle.

3. In answer, the learned counsel for the fourth respondent would contend that the mere fact that the driver did to have a valid driving licence, does not, ipso facto, absolve the insurance company from liability as against the owner of the vehicle. The insurance company should further establish that there was willful/contumacious breach on the part of the owner in allowing the driver to drive the vehicle without a valid driving licence. The 4th respondent relies on the decision of this Court in Raveendran. V.R. v. M. Sarojini, 2010 (1) KHC 726 in support of his contentions.

4. The insurance company would contend that the Supreme Court has, time and again, held that in cases, where there is no driving licence for the driver of the vehicle, the insurance company can recover the compensation amount from the owner, after paying the same to the third party. He relies on the following decisions in support of the said contention :

1. United India Insurance Company v. Lehru Fake Licence, 2003 (2) KLT 97 (SC) : 2003 (2) TAC 1.

2. Oriental Insurance Company v. Nanjappan, 2004 (13) SCC 224 : 2004 (2) TAC 12

3. National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh, 2004 (1) KLT 781 : 2004 (1) TAC 321.

4. National Insurance Company v. Kusumam Rai, 2006 (2) KLT 300 (SC) : 2006 (3) TAC 1

5. National Insurance Company v. Lakshmi Narayan Dutt, 2007 (3) SCC 700 : 2007 (2) TAC 398

6. Iswar Chandra v. Oriental Insurance Company, 2007 (10) SCC 650 : 2007 (2) TAC 393

7. Prem Kumari v. Prahlad Dev, 2008 (3) SCC 193 : 2008 (1) TAC 803

8. Sardari v. Sushil Kumar, 2008 (3) KLT SN 69 (C. No. 84) : 2008 (2) TAC 369 (SC) (Judgment in Civil Appeal No. 1733/08 dated 4.3.08)

9. National Insurance Company v. Geetha Bhat, 2008 (1) KLT 1001 (SC) : 2008 (2) TAC 385

10. New India Assurance Company v. Roshan Ben, 2008 (8) SCC 253 : 2008 (3) TAC 20.

11. Ram Babu Tivari v. United India Insurance Company, 2008 (8) SCC 165 : 2008 (3) TAC 769.

12. Oriental Insurance Company v. Syed Ibrahim, 2007 ACJ 2816 : 2007 (4) TAC 385 (SC)

13. National Insurance Company v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala, 2008 (12) SCC 701 : 2008 (4) TAC 378.

14. Kusum Latha v. Satbir and others, 2011 (3) SCC 646 : 2011 (2) TAC 1.

15. Jawhar Singh v. Bala Jain, 2011 (6) SCC 425 : 2011 (3) TAC 12

16. S. Iyyappan v. United India Insurance Company, 2013 (7) SCC 62 : 2013 (3) TAC 392

It is further contended that in this case, even going by the decision relied on by the 4th respondent, the insurance company has conclusively proved that the owner was