'1O7.Wemay, however,hasten to add that the Tribunal and ttre court must, howe!€r, exercise their jurisdiction to issue such a direction upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case and in the event such a direction has been issued, despite arriving at a finding of fact to the effect that the insurer has been abte to establish that the insured has committed a breach of contract of insurance as envisaged under sub-clause (rr) of clause (a) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act, the ii'rsurance company shall be entitled to realise the awarded amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle, as the case may be, in execution of the same award having regard to the provisions of Sections 165 and 168 of the Act. However, in the event, having regard to t}Ie limited scope of inquiry in the proceedings before the Tribunal it had not been able to do so, the insurance company may initiate a separate action therefor against the owner or tJle driver of the vehicle or both, as the case may be. Those exceptional cases may arise when the evidence becomes available to or comes to the notice of the insurer at a subsequent stage or for one reason or the other, the insurer was not given an opportunity to defend at alt. Such a course of action may also be resorted to when a fraud or collusion between the victim arrd the owner of the vehicle is detected or comes to the knowledge of the insurer at a later stage.
