P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) INSURANCE company has filed this appeal. Claimant-respondent nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of the deceased who died on account of accident caused by a mini truck bearing registration no. OR-07-0867. Accident took place on 12. 3. 1994 while the deceased was going to his village on a cycle. It was alleged that the mini truck dashed against the deceased. ( 2 ) THE owner filed written statement denying the allegations made in the petition. It was further pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the present appellant and the liability, if any, is to be borne by the insurer. The insurance company apart from denying the allegations took the plea that the vehicle had not been insured and the driver of the vehicle did not have valid driving licence. ( 3 ) THE Claims Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini truck. It further held that a sum of Rs. 1,95,000 in all was payable to the claimants. It was found that the vehicle had been insured with the present appellant. It was also found that the driver had a valid driving licence. Thus, the insurance company was found liable to pay the entire amount to the claimants. ( 4 ) IN this appeal, apart from challenging the award on merit, that is to say, on the question of negligence and quantum, the appellant has also challenged the finding of the Tribunal relating to liability of the insurance company to pay the amount. It has been specifically contended that the driving licence relied upon by the Claims tribunal, which appeared to have been renewed at Berhampur, was, in fact, a forged driving licence and as such, the insurance company should not be made liable to pay the amount. ( 5 ) SO far as the questions of negligence and quantum of compensation are concerned, in view of the decisions of the apex Court in Narendra Kumar v. Yare-nissa, 1998 ACJ 244 (SC) and Shankara-yya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , 1998 ACJ 513 (SC), such questions cannot be agitated by the insurance company in an appeal in the absence of any specific order under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). Ltd. , 1998 ACJ 513 (SC), such questions cannot be agitated by the insurance company in an appeal in the absence of any specific order under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' ). In the present case, the owner had contested the proceeding by filing written statement and cross-examining the witness on behalf of the claimants. There is no allegation that the owner had colluded with the claimants and as such, the insurance company is not entitled to challenge the award on merits regarding the questions of negligence and quantum. ( 6 ) THAT apart, a perusal of the materials on record clearly indicates that the findings of the Claims Tribunal are based on the evidence on record. The driver of the offending vehicle has not been examined and as such, adverse inference is to be drawn against the owner and the insurance company. The quantification is based on discussion of the relevant materials on record and it cannot be said that the award of a sum of Rs. 1,95,000 in the facts and circumstances of the case was grossly excessive so as to warrant interference in this appeal. For the aforesaid reasons, the contentions raised by the counsel for the appellant regarding the merits of the case cannot be accepted. ( 7 ) THE main thrust of the appellant relates to the question of liability of the insurance company. It is submitted that on verification with reference to the original driving licence, it appears that no such driving licence had been issued in favour of the driver in question and the renewal of the licence is based on a fake original driving licence and as such the insurance company should not be made liable to pay the compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the claimants-respondents submitted that even assuming that the original licence was non-existent or a fake one, since renewal had been granted, such renewed driving licence must be assumed to be valid one. In this connection, the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents has placed reliance upon the decision of this court in Divisional Manager, National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ranjan Kumar Pati, 1997 0 ACJ 1417 (Orissa ). In this connection, the learned counsel for the claimants-respondents has placed reliance upon the decision of this court in Divisional Manager, National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ranjan Kumar Pati, 1997 0 ACJ 1417 (Orissa ). He has further submitted that the insurance company can escape liability only if it proves that there has been a breach of the conditions in the policy and unless it is proved that there has been a deliberate violation or infringement on the part of the insured, the insurance company cannot escape liability. ( 8 ) IN order to satisfy myself about the factual correctness of the submissions made by the counsel for the parties relating to the driving licence, I had requested the Standing Counsel (Transport) to produce the relevant records. The Standing counsel (Transport) has produced the register containing renewal of driving licence issued by the licensing authority of Ganjam district and the xerox copy of the relevant page has been marked as Exh. 12 on consent of both the parties. The aforesaid document indicates that a driving licence bearing No. 330/81 issued by the licensing authority of Phulbani District in the name of K. Surya Narayan Rao had been renewed by the licensing authority of Ganjam district, as evident from Exh. 12. It was the specific case of the insurance company that driving licence No. 330/81 issued by the licensing authority of the District of phulbani did not relate to K. Surya Narayan Rao, but related to some other person. The learned Standing Counsel (Transport)was also requested to verify about the driving licence No. 330/81 issued by the licensing authority of Phulbani District and on verification it has been found out as a matter of fact that the driving licence no. 330/81 issued by the licensing authority of Phulbani District was not in the name of K. Surya Narayan Rao, but was in respect of a motor cycle issued to one prasanta Kumar Routray. As a matter of fact, the xerox copy of the letter dated 29. 3. 1996 written by the R. T. O. , Phulbani, to the insurance company which is now being marked as Exh. 13 confirms such statement made on behalf of the R. T. O. , phulbani. As a matter of fact, the xerox copy of the letter dated 29. 3. 1996 written by the R. T. O. , Phulbani, to the insurance company which is now being marked as Exh. 13 confirms such statement made on behalf of the R. T. O. , phulbani. It is thus pritna facie obvious that though renewal had been made in favour of the driver K. Surya Narayan rao, the original driving licence on the basis of which the renewal was obtained, was a fake one and for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, I proceed on such assumption that the original driving licence was a fake one. ( 9 ) SECTION 149 (2) of the Act contemplates that the insurance company can be absolved of its liability if it proves that "there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, excluding driving by any person who is not duly licensed". As observed by the Supreme Court in the decision in Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh reddy, 1996 0 ACJ 1044 (SC), in order to avoid its liability, it is necessary for the insurance company to establish that the insured was guilty of an infringement or violation of a promise and such violation or infringement on the part of the insured was wilful. ( 10 ) SECTION 3 of the Act provides that no person shall drive a motor vehicle unless he holds a valid and effective driving licence. Section 181 of the Act prescribes that any person who drives a motor vehicle in contravention of section 3 shall be punishable. In other words, a driver who used a fake driving licence is punishable under section 181 of the Act as he knows that his licence is not valid. Section 180 of the Act lays down that any person being the owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle is liable to be punished if he causes or permits any other person to drive a vehicle in contravention of section 3 of the act. It is obvious that in order to hold him liable under section 180 of the Act, it has to be established that the person had the necessary metis rea. If a forged driving licence is produced before an owner of a vehicle, it may not be possible for the owner to satisfy himself regarding the genuineness of the driving licence. It is obvious that in order to hold him liable under section 180 of the Act, it has to be established that the person had the necessary metis rea. If a forged driving licence is produced before an owner of a vehicle, it may not be possible for the owner to satisfy himself regarding the genuineness of the driving licence. The forgery committed by the driver may not be within the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle. In such a case, it cannot be said that the owner would also be liable though obviously the driver in possession of a forged driving licence would be liable. ( 11 ) IN the present case, it appears that there was no original l. icence in favour of the driver in question though subsequently there has been a renewal. Law is well settled that no person can take advantage of his own fraud. If the original driving licence is a fake one or a forged one, the driver cannot claim that he has got a valid driving licence merely because subsequently he obtains a renewal of the driving licence. The driving licence purportedly obtained from one place can be renewed by the licensing authority at any other place. Sometimes, such renewal may be granted by the licensing authority without knowing that the original licence is a fake one and at times such renewal may be obtained even by collusion. Whatever may be the position, it is obvious that the driver possessing such fake 'original licence' is guilty of an offence punishable under section 181 of the Act. His original action in obtaining a fake driving licence being a punishable crime, the subsequent action-in obtaining a renewal on the basis of a fake licence cannot place him in a better position and so far as the driver is concerned, such renewed licence shall be equally invalid. Section 15 of the Act contemplates the renewal of a licence. A fake or forged licence cannot be considered to be 'licence' within the meaning of the expression as used in the Act. However, merely because the original licence is fake or the subsequent renewal is invalid, it cannot be assumed that the owner of a vehicle employing such a driver is also guilty for the original fraud. In most of the cases, the owner would be oblivious of the preceding forgery committed by the driver. However, merely because the original licence is fake or the subsequent renewal is invalid, it cannot be assumed that the owner of a vehicle employing such a driver is also guilty for the original fraud. In most of the cases, the owner would be oblivious of the preceding forgery committed by the driver. Therefore, unless it is established that the owner had permitted the driver to drive the vehicle knowing that his original driving licence was a fake one, or the renewed licence was illegal, the owner cannot be found guilty under section 180 of the Act. Applying the same logic, the insurance company cannot be exonerated from the liability of satisfying the award unless it is established that the owner of the vehicle had knowingly permitted the driver with a fake licence to drive the vehicle. For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and the appeal is accordingly liable to be dismissed. ( 12 ) THE menace of producing a fake driving licence or a renewed driving licence based on fake original licence has assumed alarming proportions in recent times. It is necessary for the transport authority to check such evil at the time of renewing a licence at a place which is different from the place of issuance of original driving licence. The licensing authority should be more careful in such matters. It is the duty of the transport authority to issue necessary instruction or frame necessary regulation to curb the menace of renewal of fake driving licence at a place other than the place of issuance of the original licence. It is high time that appropriate steps should be taken by the authority. ( 13 ) BEFORE parting with the case, I must place on record my appreciation for the fair manner in which Mr. A. K. Mohanty and Mr. B. N. Rath, learned counsel for the appellant and respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have placed all the relevant provisions of the statutes and decisions. I must also place on record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. J. Pal, advocate, who was present at the time of hearing and had produced all the relevant materials on behalf of the learned Standing counsel (Transport ). ( 14 ) THE misc. appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. I must also place on record my appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. J. Pal, advocate, who was present at the time of hearing and had produced all the relevant materials on behalf of the learned Standing counsel (Transport ). ( 14 ) THE misc. appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.