The main legal principle established in the judgment is the insurer's liability in cases of third party risks and breach of policy conditions under the Motor Vehicle Act, along with the insurer's entitlement to recover from the insured if there was a breach of policy conditions.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimants against the Judgement and Decree dated 17.3.2004 made in MCOP.No.541 of 1999 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC-II) (MACT) Coimbatore.

2. The only point that arises for determination in this appeal is as to whether the Tribunal was justified in not passing the order of pay and recover against the Insurer in the light of the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court and a latest decision (Jawahar Singh Vs. Bala Jain and others), in a similar situation, in so far as the third party risks are concerned. In other respects, the findings of the Tribunal are not challenged.

3. The learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that unless the Honourable Supreme Court restricts application of any judgement to the case on hand, particularly, between the parties and further directs that the judgement would not operate as a prudent, will have to be followed as it stands as a binding precedent. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the law laid down in the form of direction in Baljit Kaur's Case (2004-ACJ-428-SC). The learned counsel referred to the decisions of this court reported in 2010-4-LW-742 (Bajaj Allianz Insurance Company Limited, Pune Vs. P.Manimozhi and others), 2009-5-MLJ-715 (United India Insurance Company Limited, Salem Vs. S.Saravanan and another) and 2001-3-LW-367 (M/s.National Insurance Company Limited, Karaikudi Vs. Sakthi and others), where similar directions were given to pay and recover against the Insurance Company placing reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court .

4. On the other hand, Mr.K.Padmanabhan, the learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent Insurance Company argued that the court has no jurisdiction to pass an order of pay and recover against the Insurer. Even in a case of third party risk having been covered by the Insurer, if it was established that due to a fundamental breach of the essential condition of the policy i.e. the offending vehicle having been driven by a person not possessing a valid and effective driving licence, the insurer could avoid liability under Section 149 (2)(a)(ii) of the Act. He placed reliance on the decisions of this court reported in 2011-1-TNMAC-288 (The United India Insurance Company Limited, Salem Vs. E.Rajamanickam and another), 2010-1-TNMAC-65 (New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. V.Chandran and another) and 2009-2-TNMAC-364 (The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Pondicherry Vs. Anbu Thiagarajan and another).

5. The learned counsel for the 3rd Respondent Insurance Company would contend that a direction of pay and recover is given to meet the ends of justice by the Apex Court of India, in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Apex Court under Art.136 and 143 of the Constitution of India, which is not available to the Tribunal or even to the High Court.

6. It is relevant to point that in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Kamla (2001-ACJ-843-SC), National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh (2004-ACJ-1-SC) and M/s.National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut (2007-ACJ-721-SC) , the Honourable Supreme Court had upheld the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, directing the insurer to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of Tribunal. In the present case, there is no dispute that the claimants are third parties being the legal representatives of the deceased V.Krishnasamy, who died in the accident that occurred on 12.3.1999 involving the offending vehicle owned by the 2nd Respondent owner. The finding of the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle had no driving licence is not challenged either by the insured or by the claimants.

7. In Skandia Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan (1987-ACJ-411-SC), it was observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that the insistence of the legislature that a motor vehi