An insurance company is not liable to satisfy an award if there is a breach of policy conditions, but the principle of pay and recover can be applied to ensure that the rights of the claimants are not affected.

1. - The instant appeal has been filed on behalf appellant-ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the judgment award dated 16.11.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh in Claim Case No. 381/2010, whereby, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,27,604 along with interest @ 6% as compensation to claimants in a claim application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles by the legal heirs of the deceased Shri Mangat Ram.

2. Whilst accepting the claim application, the learned Tribunal held the appellant Insurance Company and the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle (tempo) bearing Registration No. RJ-31-P-1534 jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award.

3. The appellant - Insurance Company has approached this Court by way of instant appeal challenging the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding it to be jointly and severally responsible along with the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle to satisfy the award.

4. Learned Counsel Shri Vinay Kothari appearing on behalf of the appellant urged that it is an admitted case that the vehicle involved in the accident i.e. the tempo was a transport vehicle. The driver was having a licence which authorised him to drive a LMV only. The licence was not valid for plying a transport vehicle. Thus, as per him, it being a clear case of breach of policy conditions, the insurance Company was wrongly held responsible to satisfy the award jointly and severally with the owner.

5. Learned Counsel thus prayed that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant-Insurance Company jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award with the owner cum driver of the insured vehicle is liable to be set aside. He submitted that in view of the admitted facts of the lease, at best a direction to pay and recover could have been issued. He further prayed that the owner of the offending vehicle be directed to furnish an undertaking that he would indemnify the Insurance Company and then only the compensation be disbursed to the claimants.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel Shri Vipin Makkad appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7, the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle (tempo) bearing Registration No. RJ-31-P-1534 and Shri S.D. Goswami appearing on behalf of the claimants vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant.

7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment cum award.

8. The fact regarding the offending vehicle being a transport vehicle (passenger carrying vehicle) is admitted. The fact that the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle was having a licence authorising him to drive only a LMV is also admitted. Thus, the only question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether, in view of this admitted factual position, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant-Insurance Company jointly and severally responsible with the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle to satisfy the award can be sustained.

9. In the opinion of this Court, the conditions of the insurance policy require that in order to make the Insurance Company liable to satisfy the award, the vehicle should be used and operated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. One of the primary conditions of the insurance policy is that the driver of the offending vehicle should hold a valid licence authorising him to drive the insured vehicle as per its category. The vehicle in question was admittedly a transport vehicle meant for carrying passengers. Thus, in order to drive such a vehicle, it was essential for the driver to be holding a licence authorising him to drive a transport vehicle. As, in the case at hand, the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle was admittedly having a licence authorising him to drive a Light Motor Vehicle only, it would necessarily imply that the vehicle was being driven in the bre