JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—When this case was taken up today, learned Counsel for the parties stated that this matter needs to be disposed of at this stage only. Accordingly it was finally heard after it was admitted. 2. Brief facts giving rise to this case are that Shyam Lai, hereinafter referred to as the claimant, filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the grant of compensation. According to him, truck bearing registration No. HP-17-9600 was owned by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the owner). It was insured with National Insurance Company Limited i.e. respondent No. 3, (hereinafter referred to as the insurer). Leelu Ram respondent No. 2 was the driver and is being referred to as such. Rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver while driving the aforesaid truck caused accident on 5.8.1998, when claimant was on scooter bearing registration No. CH-01-E-1728. Around 9 p.m. when the claimant had reached near Kolar bus stand, the scooter was hit by the truck which was being reversed in a rash and negligent manner from the side of link road known as Kolar Paonta Sahib road. As a result of this accident, claimant sustained serious injuries and was rushed immediately to Paonta Sahib Civil Hospital. Looking to his injuries, he was referred to Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh. As a result of this accident, he lost vision of his left eye. This was assessed 30% permanent disability and was certified by the doctors concerned. 3. In the aforesaid background compensation in the sum of Rs. 3 lacs was claimed. When put to notice owner and driver filed a common written statement. Per them, claim put forth was based on false and baseless grounds as scooter was not hit by the truck. Their further stand was that the injuries sustained by the claimant were in fact attributable to his own negligent driving of the scooter, which resulted in its having slipped on the road when he (claimant) fell down. Another defence set up was that claim if any, is to be indemnified by the insurer with whom the truck stood insured on the date of accident. 4. Insurer denied its liability for the claim. It even went to the extent of pleading that truck in question was not insured with it. Another defence set up was that claim if any, is to be indemnified by the insurer with whom the truck stood insured on the date of accident. 4. Insurer denied its liability for the claim. It even went to the extent of pleading that truck in question was not insured with it. Driver of the truck being not possessed of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident was also set up as a defence to negative the claim set up before the Tribunal below. Claim petition being not maintainable and its being also the result of collusion between the claimant on one side as well as owner and driver on the other, was also pleaded. In the rejoinders filed by the claimant all the pleas set up by the respondents in their respective reply were controverted. 5. Trial Court framed following issues : 1. Whether the applicant sustained injuries on his person on 5.8.1998 at about 9 p.m. while travelling on a scooter when hit by a truck bearing registration No. HP-17-9600 being driven rashly and negligently by Leelu Ram, respondent No. 1? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, what is the magnitude and seriousness of the injuries sustained by the applicant? OPP 3. If issue Nos. 1 and 2 are proved to what amount of compensation the applicant is entitled to and from whom? OPP 4. Whether the truck was insured with respondent No. 3 covering the date of accident. OPP 5. Whether the truck in question was being driven by respondent No. 1 without possessing the driving licence and in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Policy? OPR-3 6. Relief. Thereafter keeping in view the findings on Issue No. 5 while allowing compensation in the sum of Rs. 1,78,506, with 9% interest from the date of filing the petition i.e. 1.7.1999 till the date of realisation of the entire awarded amount, held owner and driver jointly and severally liable. While passing this award, Tribunal exonerated the insurer. Hence this appeal at the instance of the owner. 6. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company at the very outset and very fairly stated, that the vehicle in question stood insured under a valid and legal policy issued by his client on the date of accident. While passing this award, Tribunal exonerated the insurer. Hence this appeal at the instance of the owner. 6. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company at the very outset and very fairly stated, that the vehicle in question stood insured under a valid and legal policy issued by his client on the date of accident. He however hastened to add, that not only finding on Issue No. 5 disentitled the idemnification of the owner, but there was gross breach of the terms of the policy on his part while engaging the driver, (i.e. respondent No. 2 in this appeal). As such his client in no case can be held responsible for payment of any amount whatsoever. Mr. Gautam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the claimant pointed out that so far his client is concerned, he is entitled to compensation whether it is paid by owner, driver or the Insurance Company. 7. According to him looking to the letter of law, declared by the Supreme Court of India, in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru and others, JT 2003 (2) SC 595, as well as in New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla and others, AIR 2001 SC 1419, the amount of compensation awarded is payable by the Insurance Company. This submission of Mr. Gautam was supported by Mr. Kuldip Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the owner. He stated that once insurance of the vehicle was admitted, finding of Issue No. 5 does not exonerate the insurer of its liability to make good so far third party like claimant in this behalf is concerned. It appears that when impugned award was passed, learned Tribunal below did not care to notice the decision of Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla and others (supra). 8. With a view to properly appreciate the respective submissions urged on behalf of the parties what was held in these two decisions, need to be briefly noted. 9. In case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru and others, it was held as under :— "18. Now let us consider Section 149(2). Reliance has been placed on Section 149(2)(a)(ii). As seen in order to avoid liability under this provision it must be shown that there is a "breach". As held in Skandias and Sohan Lal Passis case (supra) the breach must be on part of the insured. Now let us consider Section 149(2). Reliance has been placed on Section 149(2)(a)(ii). As seen in order to avoid liability under this provision it must be shown that there is a "breach". As held in Skandias and Sohan Lal Passis case (supra) the breach must be on part of the insured. We are in full agreement with that. To hold otherwise would lead to absurd result. Just to take an example, suppose a vehicle is stolen. Whilst it is being driven by the thief there is an accident. The thief is caught and it is ascertained that he had no licence. Can the insurance company disown liability? The answer has to be an emphatic "No". To hold otherwise would be to negate the very purpose of compulsory insurance. The injured or relatives of person killed in the accident may find that the decree obtained by them is only a paper decree as the owner is a man of straw. The owner himself would be an innocent sufferer. It is for this reason that the legislature, in its wisdom, has made insurance, atleast third party insurance, compulsory. The aim and purpose being that an insurance company would be available to pay. The business of the company is to insure. In all business there is an element of risk. All persons carrying on business must take risks associated with the business. Thus it is equitable that the business which is run for making profits also bears the risk associated with it. At the same time innocent parties must not be made to suffer or loss. These provisions meet these requirements. We are thus in agreement with what is laid down in aforementioned cases viz. that in order to avoid liability it is not sufficient to show that the person driving at the time of accident was not duly licensed. The insurance company must establish that the breach was on the part of the insured. 20. When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange that insurance companies expect owners to make enquiries with RTOs which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii). The insurance company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/ insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly even in such a case the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. This is the law which has been laid down in Sakandias Sohan Lal Passis and Kamlas case. We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and seen no reason to take a different view." 10. Similarly in the case of New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kamla and others (supra), it was held as under : "25. The position can be summed up thus: The insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid licence. Learned Counsel for the insured contended that it is enough if he establishes that he made all due enquiries and believed bona fide that the driver employed by him had a valid driving licence, in which case there was no breach of the policy condition. Learned Counsel for the insured contended that it is enough if he establishes that he made all due enquiries and believed bona fide that the driver employed by him had a valid driving licence, in which case there was no breach of the policy condition. As we have not decided on that contention it is open to the insured to raise it before the Claims Tribunal. In the present case, if the Insurance Company succeeds in establishing that there was breach of the policy condition, the Claims Tribunal shall direct the insured to pay that amount to the insurer. In default the insurer shall be allowed to recover that amount (which the insurer is directed to pay to the claimants-third parties) from the insured person." 11. Faced with this situation as well as in view of the above decisions of the Supreme Court, Mr. Bhasin learned Counsel for the insurer submitted that in case his client is held liable to satisfy the award in favour of the claimant, liberty may be reserved to recover any amount that is paid as per this judgment to his client from the owner. This plea was contested and resisted by Mr. Kuldip Singh, who submitted that there is no foundation laid in the written statement filed during the course of proceedings before the Tribunal below whereby any such right was reserved factually or as an alternative plea. Thus he submitted that this prayer needs to be rejected. 12. After having considered respective submissions urged and after following the above Supreme Court decisions, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal below is modified in the following terms: (a) that it shall be the liability of the insurer to pay the amount awarded by the Tribunal in this case; (b) so far its right to recover the same from the owner (present appellant) is concerned, the question is left open keeping in view the finding in Issue No. 5. And if law permits, the insurer will certainly be entitled to refund of such amount. And if law permits, the insurer will certainly be entitled to refund of such amount. As and when any action is taken by it i.e. the insurer, in such a situation the court/ forum before whom the action is initiated shall deal with the matter iv accordance with law and, of course, without being influenced in any manner from this judgment, which is meant only for disposal of this appeal; (c) insurer is directed to deposit the amount of compensation in the Registry of this Court by or before 30.9.2003 with upto date interest and costs, if any, minus any amount if any deposited/paid under no fault liability during the course of proceedings before the learned Tribunal below. And on such deposit being made the same shall be remitted to respondent No. 1 claimant on his furnishing bank account number; (d) parties are left to bear their own costs; and (e) the amount deposited by the owner-appellant is ordered to be refunded to him with upto date interest. Urgent copy of this judgment will be made available to the learned Counsel for the parties within one week from today. Appeal disposed of.