S. Manikumar, J.

In the accident, which occurred on 26.03.2006, the husband of the 1st respondent died. Wife, son and the legal representatives of the deceased’s son, claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. A case in crime No. 236 of 2006 u/s 279, 337 and 304-A IPC read with 39(1) r/w 192(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been registered against the driver of the tractor cum trailer bearing Engine No. 39-1340 SGG 05362 Chasis No. QVCH31605109612 Model 735, insured with the appellant insurance company.

2. The deceased was stated to be aged 70 years. Fixing the monthly income as Rs. 3,000/- and after deducting 1/3 towards his personal and living expenses, and by applying, ‘5’ multiplier, the claims tribunal has computed the loss of contribution to the family, as Rs. 1,20,000/-. In addition to the above, the claims tribunal has awarded Rs. 10,000/- each to the respondents 2 to 7/claimants, under the head loss of love and affection. A sum of Rs.5,000/- for funeral expenses and Rs.2,000/- for transportation, has been awarded. Altogether, the claims tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,87,000/- with interest, at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation.

3. The only challenge in this appeal by the Insurance Company is that when the claims tribunal has recorded that the driver of the offending vehicle Tractor cum trailer bearing Engine No. 39-1340 SGG 05362 Chasis No. QVCH31605109612 Model 735, which was insured with the company, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, it ought not to have fastened the liability on them to pay compensation and thereafter, to recover the said sum from the insured. The claims tribunal ought to have exonerated the company in entirety.

4. The said contention is no longer res integra in view of the Division Bench decisions of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., v. S. Saravanan reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 103 (DB), United India Insurance Company Limited, Salem, Vs. V.Vijayakumar, represented by his mother Kalamani and three others, reported in 2010 (2) TN MAC 388 (DB) and Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Pune, Vs. Manimozhi and four others, reported in 2010 (2) TN MAC 542 (DB).

5. The question as to whether, it is open to the insurer to seek for total exoneration for payment of compensation to a third party victim or whether it has only a right of recovery under Sections 149(4) and (5) of the Motor Vehicle's Act, has been extensively considered in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Vs. Annakkili, reported in 2012 (1) TN MAC 226, wherein, this Court following the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and the Hon'ble Division bench judgments held that, payment of compensation to a third party victim or legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be, is statutory and considering the interpretation given by the Supreme Court to Sections 147, 149(4) and (5) vis-a-vis, the defences open to the Insurance Company u/s 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act held that the very introduction of the words, "pay compensation to the third party and recover the same from the insured" in Section 149(4) and (5) of the Act, would reflect the divine intention of the legislature to protect the interest of the third parties, vis-a-vis inter-se disputes between the insured and insurer, and further held that the insurer cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation to a third party, but such avoidance can be made only, if willful breach of terms and conditions of the policy by the insured, by consciously and recklessly allowing the driver, who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, to drive the vehicle and even if such breach is proved, payment of compensation to the third party victim cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be avoided by the Company and that the only remedy open to the insurer in law is to pay the compensation to the third party victims and recover from the insured. In view of