S. Siri Jagan, J.

1. A question, which disturbs our judicial conscience, arises in these two appeals. The question is as to whether, the fact that the driver whose negligence in driving the vehicle caused accident in a motor accident claim, had only a fake driving licence, which was not known to the owner of the vehicle, would result in a situation where neither the driver nor the owner would not be liable to reimburse to the insurance company, the amount paid by the insurance company to the claimants, on account of the violation of the policy condition that the driver driving the insured vehicle should possess a valid driving licence.

2. The question arises in the following fact situation: The appellant is the insurance company in O.P.(M.V).Nos.8 and 9 of 1997 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, both of which arose from the same accident. The same were filed by the dependants of deceased Devaki and Beepathumma, who died in a motor accident caused by the negligent driving of the vehicle by the 1st respondent herein, which was owned by the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal, after finding negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, awarded compensation of Rs. 3,03,800/- and Rs. 3,18,200/- respectively to the claimants in the two O.Ps. The appellant- insurance company was directed to indemnify the driver and owner of the vehicle for the amounts of compensation since the vehicle was insured with the appellant. In the common award, which is impugned in these appeals, the Tribunal entered a finding that the driving licence possessed by the 1st respondent- driver was a fake one and was not issued by an authority competent to issue such licences under the Motor Vehicles Act. Despite the same, no right was given to the insurance company to recover the compensation amounts either from the driver or from the owner of the vehicle. The appellant challenges that part of the award, whereby the appellant was not given the right to recover the compensation paid by them from either the driver or the owner, on account of violation of policy conditions, insofar as admittedly, the driver did not have a valid driving licence, which was a condition of the policy issued by the appellant to the 2nd respondent in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident.

3. The contention of the appellant is that once it is proved that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence to drive a vehicle, then the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, since the policy specifically stipulated that vehicle shall be driven only by a person, who possesses a valid driving licence to drive the kind of vehicle covered by the policy. The appellant relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sujata Arora & others, 2013 ACJ 2129.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-owner of the vehicle submits that the mere absence of licence is not sufficient to make the owner liable to reimburse the amount paid by the insurance company to the claimants to the insurance company. For the same, there must be a further finding that the owner had permitted the driver to drive the vehicle with the knowledge that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. It is submitted that in this case, the forgery of the licence was so perfect that even the police could not detect that the same was a forged one. It was only after ascertaining from the concerned R.T.O. that it was confirmed that such a licence was never issued to the 1st respondent-driver from the office of the R.T.O. That being so, the owner cannot be faulted for the 1st respondent driving the vehicle without a valid licence is the contention. In such circumstances, the owner cannot be saddled with the liability to reimburse the amount paid by the insurance company to the claimants is the submission of the 2nd respondent-owner of the vehicle. The advocate for the 2nd respondent relies on the dec