The insurer cannot avoid liability to third parties merely due to the insured's breach of policy (lack of valid license); such breaches must be established as fundamental to exonerate the insurer.

JUDGMENT :

K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi, J.

These appeals, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, have been filed by the appellant/petitioner for enhancement of the sum awarded in the judgment and decree dated 10.01.2025 made in M.C.O.P. Nos.987 and 991 of 2019 on the file of the Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Tribunal.

3. Shortly stated, on 27.02.2019, at about 16.30 hours, when the petitioner in MCOP No.991/2019 was riding the motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 41 Q 4552 with his son (claimant in MCOP No.987/2019) as pillion rider, opposite to Rasakkalpalayam Sennamman Kovil, on Pollachi to Palladam Road, a Light Goods Vehicle (LGV) bearing Registration No. TN 41 AK 0871 driven by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit the motorcycle driven by the petitioner in MCOP No.991/2019, as a result of which, the petitioner in the both the petitions have suffered grievous injuries. They preferred claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirupur, in MCOP No. 987/2019 (filed by Minor Mano Gopalakrishnan) and MCOP No.991/2019 (filed by Gopalakrishnan Kandhasamy) seeking compensation of Rs.30,00,000/- each for the injuries sustained by them in the said accident.

4. The Claim petitions were resisted by the 2^nd respondent / Insurance Company by stating that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner in MCOP No.991/2019 and that the 1^st respondent did not possess effective driving license at the time of accident and hence the 2^nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners.

5. The Claims Tribunal framed necessary issues and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 1^st respondent / owner cum driver of the offending vehicle. Since the 1^st respondent drove the vehicle without an effective driving license, which is in violation of the terms of Insurance Policy and the provisions of the MV Act, the Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability and directed the 1^st respondent / owner of the vehicle to pay a compensation of Rs.6,20,808/- to the petitioner in MCOP No.987/2019 and a sum of Rs.1,91,000/- to the petitioner in MCOP No.991/2019 together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation.

6. Questioning the dismissal of the claim as against the 2^nd respondent / Insurance Company and seeking enhancement of compensation, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are filed by the petitioner in both the MCOPs.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant in both the appeals would contend that, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim as against the 2^nd respondent / Insurance Company merely on the ground that the 1^st respondent, being the owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle, did not posses a valid driving license to operate the said vehicle at the time of accident. The learned counsel for the appellant, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Singh Ram vs. Nirmala & others ( AIR 2018 SC 1290 ) and the Judgement of this Court dated 17.03.2025 in C.M.A. No.413 of 2025 (T.Vinoth Kumar vs. S. Sekar and another), submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in exonerating the Insurance Company, since the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license at the time of accident. He would further submit that the Insurance Company is liable to the third party victim and recover the award amount paid by it from the insured in case of breach of policy conditions.

7.1. The learned counsel for the appellant would fu