1. The third respondent sustained injuries in a motor accident that took place on 21-02-2009 involving an autorikshaw driven by the first respondent, owned by the first appellant and insured with the second respondent. She has filed a petition claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the accident before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The learned Tribunal, after considering the matter, found that the accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the first respondent and awarded a total compensation of Rs.75,148/- under various heads. The Tribunal further found that the first respondent was not holding a valid driving licence for driving the autorikshaw at the time of accident. Therefore, the second respondent was directed to pay the compensation to the claimant and permitted them to recover the same from the appellant. Aggrieved by the permission so granted to the second respondent for recovering the amount from the appellant, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. The first respondent was the driver of the autorikshaw. Notice to him was dispensed with as found unnecessary. No representation for the third respondent despite serving notice on her.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding entered by the Tribunal that the first respondent was not holding a valid driving licence for driving the autorikshaw at the time of accident was wrong. He was possessing a valid driving licence as well as a badge for driving the autorikshaw at the time of accident. The appellant has produced a copy of the driving licence of the first respondent in this appeal as Annexure-A1. This licence shows that the appellant was licensed to drive the autorikshaw from 16-12-2001 It can also be seen from this document that his licence was valid for driving a transport vehicle from 20-09-2012 to 19-09-2015. The accident in this case had occurred on 21-02-2009. A perusal of) Annexure-A1 does not prove that the first respondent was holding a valid driving licence or badge for driving the autorikshaw on 21-02-2009. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the first respondent was holding valid driving licence and badge for driving the autorikshaw at the time of accident cannot be accepted.

4. Whether absence of driving licence or badge can be raised as a ground for avoiding liability by the insurer in all circumstances? The Honourable Supreme Court has considered the consequence of absence of a valid driving licence for the driver at the time of accident in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004(1) KLT 781 (SC)). The summary of the findings entered by the Honourable Supreme Court in respect of this matter contains in clause(vi) of paragraph 102 of the judgment which reads as follows;

“Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver orhis 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 of the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply ‘the rule of main purpose’ and the concept of ‘fundamental breach’ to allow defences available to the insurer under S.149(2) of the Act.”

In the light of this ruling, unless the Insurance Company is able to prove that the absence of driving licence has contributed to the cause of accident, they cannot avoid their liability arising from the Insurance Policy. In the case on hand, the Tribunal has not entered a finding that the absence of a valid driving licence for the first respondent had contributed to the cause of accident. The second respondent