P.T. Asha, J.

The above Civil Revision Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order passed by the learned Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam in M.C.O.P.No.463 of 2003 wherein the learned Judge has dismissed the claim petition filed by the petitioners herein claiming compensation for the death of one Harikrishnan, who is the son of the petitioners 1 and 2 and brother of the petitioners 3 to 5.

2. The revision petitioners have claimed a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the said Hari Krishnan in a road traffic accident involving the Motor Cycle belonging to the 1st respondent which is insured with the 2nd respondent.

3. It was their case that the accident had occurred only on account of negligence of the driver of the motor cycle and therefore, the respondents herein are liable to compensate them for the death of the said Harikrishnan. It was the further case that the deceased Hari Krishnan was a commission agent for Oil seeds and was earning a monthly income of over Rs. 5,000/-.

4. The 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle has remained absent and was set ex parte before the Tribunal.

5. The Insurance Company had resisted the above claim of the petitioners inter alia contending that the accident was only on account of negligence of the deceased and the Insurance Company had called upon the claimants to submit proof to show that the driver of the motor cycle had a valid licence to drive the same. They had contended that the vehicle was driven by a third person and not the owner of the vehicle. They had also denied the quantum of compensation.

6. The Tribunal, after analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, has dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle had not been impleaded as a party in the claim petition and therefore, the claim is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and she proceeded to dismiss the claim petition. Aggrieved by this summary rejection, after the parties have let in evidence, the petitioners have invoked the superintending power of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. Heard Ms.C.Jaya Chithra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in [National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh, (2004) AIR SC 1531] has clearly held that even if the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured with reference to the violation of policy conditions regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive etc., the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability to the third parties and their remedy is to recover the said amount from the insured. This Judgment is holding the field to date and has been quoted with the approval in all later Judgments.

9. In a Motor accident claim, the proper and necessary parties who are liable to compensated the injured/deceased are the insurer and the insured of the offending vehicle. The learned Judge has committed a grave error in dismissing the claim petition on the ground of non-joinder of the driver of the offending vehicle without even making non-joinder a point for consideration. Even in the Code of Civil Procedure, Order 1 Rule 9 which deals with misjoinder and non-joinder, the provision would open with the words "no suit shall be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties".

10. The Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial legislation and aimed at providing compensation to families, who have lost their bread winner on account of an accident but for which the deceased/injured may have been able to contribute to the family for a considerable period of time. It is only on account of this accident that the bread winner of the family is either snatched away by the jaws of death or they suffer injury on account of which they are unable to earn. Theref