( 1 ) THE insurer of the vehicle bearing No. A. P. 04-T-5976 which was involved in an accident on 10-02-1998, as a result of the rash and negligent driving of its driver, resulting in juries to the 1st respondent filed this appeal, questioning the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- district court, Cuddapah in O. P. No. 38 of 2000 filed by the first respondent seeking compensation for the injuries received by him, making it also liable to the compensation of Rs. 92,000/- arrived by it, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle that caused the accident, which was issued by it, was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. ( 2 ) THE only ground on which this appeal is filed is that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the first respondent, who is the third party victim, because the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence at the time of accident. ( 3 ) IN United India Insurance Company limited v. Lehru and others the Supreme Court after reviewing the case law on the subject held that in order to avoid its liability under section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 the insurer must establish that there was a breach on the part of the insured. In that case the driver of the offending vehicle was having a fake licence. It was held that the owner is not expected to find out if the licence shown by the driver to the owner was in fact issued by the competent authority or not and if the owner has satisfied himself that the driver was having a valid driving licence and is driving competently there is no breach of Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the Motor vehicle Act, 1988 and the insurer is not absolved of its liability to the innocent third party and if it is able to establish that the insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted the driver to driver the vehicle it can recover the compensation paid by it to the third party from the insured, but cannot avoid its liability to the third party victim. ( 4 ) IN this case appellant did not adduce any evidence to establish that the insured was aware of the fact that its driver is having a fake licence and yet permitted him to drive the vehicle. Ex. B-1, which are said to be the depositions of R. Ws. 1 and 2 in another O. P. are of no help to the appellant. In the said circumstances the ratio in Lehru Case (2003 (1)An. W. R. 588 (SC) applied on all fours to the facts of this case and so, the tribunal making the appellant also liable for payment of the compensation to the first respondent who is the victim in the accident, cannot be said to be erroneous and so I find no ground to admit this appeal. ( 5 ) IT is needless to say that on establishing that the insured, being aware that the licence of his driver was fake, permitted him to drive the vehicle appellant can recover the amount paid by it to the first respondent from the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. ( 6 ) THE appeal is accordingly dismissed with the above observation. No costs.