JUDGMENT V. K. Gupta, CJ. (Oral): - By this common judgment all the three appeals are disposed of together. 2. With the consent of the parties, all t the appeals are taken up today for hearing and final disposal. 3. The only two grounds have been urged by Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company. The two grounds are as under:- 1. Since the driver driving the offending vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence, the vehicle was being driven in violation of the policy conditions and, therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company was absolved of its liability to pay. 2. The vehicle was also being used in violation of the policy conditions, because even though it was a private car (Maruti Van) it was being used for hire and reward as it was carrying passengers on that basis. 4. In so far as the first question is concerned, whether the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence or not, the Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability to pay to the claimants in view of the settled law now laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and others, reported in JT 2003(2), SC 595 and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, reported in JT 2004(1) SC 109. If the Insurance Company thought or thinks that indeed the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a driving licence or a valid driving licence, it is open to it to take steps for recovering the amount in question from the insured-owner in accordance with law. Whether ultimately it is found out that the driver held or did not hold a valid driving licence would depend upon the merits of the case and I wish to offer no comments on that aspect of the matter. 5. In so far as the second question is concerned, the Tribunal by appreciating the evidence adduced during the trial clearly returned a categorical finding that the vehicle involved in the accident was in fact a private vehicle and was not being used for hire and reward and while returning this finding the Tribunal took note of all the facts relevant for that purpose, including the fact of lodging of the FIR, under the circumstances and the oral testimony adduced in the Tribunal. 6. 6. I have seen the evidence and I find that no reasons exist whereby I could take a different or contrary view. 7. No other point was urged. 8. The appeals accordingly are dismissed and the awards upheld. It is reiterated that disposal of these appeals shall not come in the way of the appellate-Insurance Company in taking steps for initiating action against the insured-owner, if so advised, but if it is done, such action shall be dealt with in accordance with law, on its merits and taken to its logical conclusion uninfluenced by this judgment. C Cross-objections No. 7/2003 in FAO No. 416 of 2002 Cross-objections No. 6/2003 in FAO No. 417 of 2002 9. In view of the fact that the appeals have been dismissed, learned Counsel for the claimants do not press the Cross-objections. Cross-objections dismissed as not pressed. CWP No. 364/2004 in FAO No. 416/2002 CWP No. 365/2004 in FAO No. 417/2002 CWP No. 366/2004 in FAO No. 418/2002 10. Dismissed as infructious.