Mishra, J. The present appeal has been preferred by the insurer aggrieved by the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, Korba awarding a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- along with interest from the date of application at the rate of 12% per annum in respect of death claim of one Tulsiram who died in an accident dated March 4, 1994. The claimants alleged that Truck No. MP 26-D 0651 owned by Om Prakash Satyapal which was being driven by Dushyant Kumar caused accident. It was insured with the appellant insurance company. The claimants filed a petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,03,200/-. It was alleged that the death of Tulsiram took place owing to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver. The insurer took the plea that it was not liable to pay any compensation on the ground that the truck driver was not having a valid driving licence and he was not authorised to drive the vehicle which he was driving. Hence, the liability imposed under the award is bad in law. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant-insure company has examined B.P. Bharadwaj who has clearly stated that the truck driver did not possess a valid driving licence to drive heavy goods vehicle. According to him, the truck driver was possessing a driving licence but it was not for heavy goods vehicle. Thus, according to the appellant, the liability saddled on the insurer is unwarranted. It is not in dispute that the vehicle in question was being driven by Dushyant Kumar who was possessing a driving licence at the relevant time. The insurer has led evidence of a surveyor with respect to verification of licence from RTO's office at Jhansi. Certificate EX.D-3 has been placed on record which has not been proved by examination of any concerned clerk or authority of the office of RTO. On the other hand, Dushyant Kumar, driver, has produced his original licence No. 1317/94 (Ex.D-4). It appears that he had applied twice for licences. The first licence was obtained by him in the year 1988 for light motor vehicle. Thereafter, he obtained another licence in the year 1994 for heavy goods vehicle from RTO's office, Bilaspur. The driver has clearly stated in support of his licence that heavy vehicle test was taken by the RTO at Bilaspur. The first licence was obtained by him in the year 1988 for light motor vehicle. Thereafter, he obtained another licence in the year 1994 for heavy goods vehicle from RTO's office, Bilaspur. The driver has clearly stated in support of his licence that heavy vehicle test was taken by the RTO at Bilaspur. In order to rebut the evidence of the driver no witness of Bilaspur RTO's office has been examined. The survey report is with respect to issuance of licence from Jhansi. This is not of much relevance in view of the issuance of licence Ex. P-4 issued by RTO at Bilaspur. The Tribunal has further come to the conclusion that it could not be held that the driver was not authorised to drive heavy goods vehicle under the licence (Ex. D-4). If the insurer was of the opinion that licence (Ex. D-4) does not relate to heavy goods vehicle then it ought to have rebut the evidence of grant of licence (Ex. D-4) which has been interpreted in favour of the driver supported by his oral evidence. The licence (Ex. D-4) does not indicate that the driver was not authorised to drive heavy goods vehicle. Therefore, it cannot be said that any violation of the conditions of the policy has been committed. Furthermore, in the light of the principle enunciated by the Apex Court in Sohanlal Passi V. P.Sesh Reddy and others AIR 1996 SC 2627 , the owner cannot be held liable for any breach of conditions once he has taken care to engage a driver possessing valid licence and the insurer cannot escape its liability in a light manner. We find no merit in the present appeal at the instance of insurance company. The appeal is summarily dismissed.