The central legal point established in the judgment is the conditions for the insurer's liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, including the need to prove a breach on the part of the insured and the requirement for the driver to have a valid driving license at the time of the accident.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondents.

2. F.A.F.O. No. 1260 of 2011 has been filed by the car owner/appellant (Ramhet) assailing the award dated 10.02.2011 passed in M.A.C.T. Case No.138 of 2009 by Additional District Judge/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.5, Faizabad.

3. Vide order dated 13.1.2012 passed in F.A.F.O., a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court provided that the entire awarded amount will be deposited by the appellant in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, which upon being received shall be invested by way of fixed deposit in a Nationalized Bank but before the aforesaid orders being implemented, the Insurance Company has deposited the entire amount so awarded. Therefore, the appellant has preferred the aforesaid review petition, bearing No. 308 of 2013.

4. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he may be permitted to withdraw review petition No. 308 of 2013.

Accordingly, review petition No. 308 of 2013 is dismissed as withdrawn.

5. On 9.5.2009, at about 10.00 A.M., when Santosh Kumar Mishra, who was working as Supervisor in Steel Product Ltd., Faizabad, was on the way to Babhnan via Parshurampur for official work with his Motor Cycle, bearing registration No. U.P. 43 J/7784, driver of tractor, bearing registration No. U.P. 43 H/9923 (swaraj), while driving negligently and rashly, dashed the motorcycle, as a consequence of which, Santosh Kumar Mishra fell down and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately thereafter, Santosh Kumar Mishra was taken away to the District Hospital, Faizabad, where he succumbed to injuries during treatment.

6. In order to claim the compensation, legal heirs of the deceased Santosh Kumar Mishra have approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faizabad by filing Claim Petition No. 138 of 2009. The Tribunal, after exchange of pleadings and hearing the parties, vide order dated 24.12.2010, allowed the claim petition, awarding compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,51,000/- to the claimants and directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the claimants, however, liberty was granted to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation so paid to the claimants from the owner of the tractor.

7. Feeling aggrieved by the direction of the tribunal vide impugned award dated 24.12.2010 that liberty was granted to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the tractor, the appellant, who is the owner of the tractor, has filed FAFO No. 1260 of 2011.

8. While assailing the impugned award and on placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh : (2004) 3 SCC 297 , the only submission advanced by the Counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal has not found any material fact, which shows that appellant was on fault for causing the accident. Further, at the time of accident i.e on 9.5.2009 at about 10.00 A.M., the vehicle was fully insured with the Insurance Company but the Tribunal erred in not considering these vital issues and instead directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the appellant in an arbitrary and mechanical manner.

9. Before going into the merit of the case, it is apt to reproduce paras 48 to 52 of Swaran Singh (supra), which are as under : -

"48. Furthermore, the insurance company with a view to avoid its liabilities is not only required to show that the conditions laid down under Section 149(2)(a) or (b) are satisfied but is further required to establish that there has been a breach on the part of the insured. By reason of the provisions contained in the 1988 Act, a more extensive remedy has been conferred upon those who have obtained judgment against the user of a vehicle and after a certificate of insurance is delivered in terms of Section 147(3) a third party has obtained a judgment against any person insured by the policy in respect of a liability required to b