JUDGMENT Arun Kumar Goel, J.—When CMP No. 863 of 2003 was taken up today for consideration, learned Counsel for the parties in all these appeals/submitted that keeping in view the limited controversy involved in these appeals, instead of taking up this application for release of the amount, these may be finally heard and disposed of. It is for this reason that this appeal, i.e. FAO No. 118 of 2001 and other three connected appeals, i.e. FAO Nos. 119, 122 and 123 of 2001 were heard and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Facts relevant for determination of all these appeals based on the plea of the appellant-Insurance Company are being briefly noted, which are as under :— 3. Vehicle No. JKQ 4689 met with an accident on 4.10.1997. This accident took place at 12.15 p.m. near Nangabagh, Phati Bandrol, Kothi Raison, District Kullu, Himachal Pradesh. Respondents-claimants in all these cases urged that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of Jaqoob Ahmad-respondent-driver of the ill fated vehicle. Respondent Sardari Lal Sharma was its owner and respondent Piara Singh was his attorney. In the aforesaid background, compenation was claimed by respondents-claimants in the proceedings initiated by them before the learned Tribunal below. By means of the awards passed in all these cases, compensation has been awarded. 4. Before proceeding further, defence of the present appellant, i.e. Insurance Company in all the cases, may also be noted. It is, that the vehicle in question was not insured with it and there was no contract of insurance between Sardari Lal Sharma and it, (appellant-insurer). It was also pleaded that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence and other documents, like route permit, fitness certificate etc., and it war being plied in contravention of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules made thereunder, as also the contract of insurance policy. Thus, it was prayed that claim petitions were liable to be dismissed, 5. Trial Court framed number of issues in these cases. For the determination of these appeals, relevant issue is regarding the holding of a valid driving licence by the driver Jaqoob Ahmad. It was in the following terms :— "Whether the driver was not having valid driving licence? If so, its effect? OPR-3". 6. Trial Court framed number of issues in these cases. For the determination of these appeals, relevant issue is regarding the holding of a valid driving licence by the driver Jaqoob Ahmad. It was in the following terms :— "Whether the driver was not having valid driving licence? If so, its effect? OPR-3". 6. With a view to prove this issue, appellant examined as many as three witnesses, i.e. Joginder Singh, Branch Manager, National Insurance Company (RW-3); M. Nayeem Khan, Surveyor (RW-4); Peerzada Noor-ud-din, Junior Assistant, Office of RTO Srinagar (RW-5). 7. With a view to appreciate the submissions urged by Shri Ashwani Sharma on the basis of the statements of these three witnesses, as well as in the context of Ext. RW-2/A, RW-4/A to RW-4/C, reference to this evidence both oral and documentary is being briefly made hereinafter. 8. RW-3 has placed on record Ext. RW-3/A, insurance policy having been issued be its Mandi Branch. As per this witness, driving licence of the driver (Jaqoob Ahmad) was got verified through surveyor Mohd. Nayeem Khan, when it was learnt that the same has been issued in favour of one Benzir Drabu (Dubu?) for driving a private car. He placed on record copy Mark-I (Ext. RW-4/B). Thus, insurance company was not liable at all for payment. In cross-examination of this witness, nothing substantial has been brought out. 9. RW-4 is Mohd. Nayeem Khan, surveyor. According to this witness, he is B.E. (Electrical). Divisional Office of the National Insurance Company, Srinagar has handed over verification of driving licence No. 61339/ K to him. He made verification from the office of the Regional Transport Officer and on examination of the record, he found that licence under this number had been issued in favour of Benazir Drabu. He has obtained certificate from the Motor Vehicle Licensing Authority, Jammu, copy whereof was Ext. RW-4/A. Insurance Company through FAX had given the renewal number of this licence which on verification was found to be wrong and report in this behalf given by the witness to the company was Ext. RW-4/B. It was in the hand of the witness and was correct. After receipt of the summons from the Court, he again verified from the Motor Vehicle Licensing Authority, Srinagar, vide Ext. RW-4/C. In cross-examination, nothing has been brought out which may improve the case of the Insurance Company. 10. RW-5 Peerzada-Noor-ud-din stated that Ext. RW-4/B. It was in the hand of the witness and was correct. After receipt of the summons from the Court, he again verified from the Motor Vehicle Licensing Authority, Srinagar, vide Ext. RW-4/C. In cross-examination, nothing has been brought out which may improve the case of the Insurance Company. 10. RW-5 Peerzada-Noor-ud-din stated that Ext. RW-4/A has been issued from the office of Regional Transport Officer, Srinagar in the name of Dr. Benzir Drabu, wife of Feroz Maqbool for driving light motor vehicle. It was valid from 22.4.1992 to 21.4.1997. He has stated that certificate Ext. RW-4/C has been issued to this effect. According to this witness, Licence No. 612339/K has not been issued in favour of Jaqoob Ahmad. In cross-examination, he admitted that Licence No. 61339/K dated 22.4.1992 was issued to Dr. Benzir Drabu. 11. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel for the owner, his attorney, as well as the driver, placed reliance on the statement of RW-2 as well as photostat copy of the driving licence of Jaqoob Ahmad driver. What was stayed by RW 2 in the context of the photostat copy of the driving licence of Jaqoob Ahmad also needs to be noted briefly. RW-2 is Neeta Negi, Criminal Ahlmad in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu. She has stated, that Missal (Case) No. 720-1 of 97 has been brought by her, with which original licence of Jaqoob Ahmad was tagged. Its verified copy was Ext. RW-2/A. When a reference is made to this photostat copy of the driving licence of respondent Jaqoob Ahmad, it is evident that its date of issue is 26.9.1991. (Categories of vehicles he could drive per Ext. RW-2/A, were light motor vehicles, medium vehicles, heavy vehicles and HTV). 12. From the examination of the aforesaid documents, particularly Ext. RW-2/A and RW-4-A to RW-4/C, it is clear that Ext. RW-2/A was issued in favour of Jaqoob Ahmad, i.e. driver of the ill-fated vehicle on 26.9.1991, whereas licence that has been proved in terms of Ext. RW-4/ A to Ext. RW-4/C was issued much after this, i.e. 22.4.1992. This is one side of the case. There is positive evidence of RW-4 that licence, verification whereof was sought through him was not qua the licence that had been issued on 26.9.1991, but was regarding licence that was issued on 22.4.1992. RW-4/ A to Ext. RW-4/C was issued much after this, i.e. 22.4.1992. This is one side of the case. There is positive evidence of RW-4 that licence, verification whereof was sought through him was not qua the licence that had been issued on 26.9.1991, but was regarding licence that was issued on 22.4.1992. Therefore, submission of Shri Ashwani Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that in the licence register a continuing serial number is maintained irrespective of the date and year of its issue of a particular licence. This argument cannot be accepted (or the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. No provision of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Rules (Central or State) to this effect were brought to my notice. 13. What was referred to the surveyor, was not the licence of the driver Jaqoob Ahmad. His licence had been proved as Ext. RW-2/A. Therefore, to say that the driving licence was fake, is a plea without any basis. There was nothing that prevented the appellant to have got this fact clarified from RW-5 who has admittedly stated from the record brought by him that Exts. RW-4/A to RW-4/C were issued from his office. He is a Junior Assistant in the office of RTO Srinagar. 14. In case an Insurance Company like the appellant in these appeals, wanted to get itself exonerated of the liability to pay compensation, then all exclusions were to be proved by it. This matter is no more res-integra in view of the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Narchinva V. Kamat and another etc. v. Alfredo Antonio Deo Martins and others, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1281; Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan and others, (1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 654; United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and others, (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 338 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, JT 2004 (1) SC 109. What was held in the case of Swaran Singh, supra, and is relevant in these appeals, is extracted herein-in-below :— "108............................................................................................................. (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicle against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. What was held in the case of Swaran Singh, supra, and is relevant in these appeals, is extracted herein-in-below :— "108............................................................................................................. (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicle against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii)............................................................................................................... (iii) The breach of policy condition, e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section 2(a) (ii) of Section 149, have to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them." 15. Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the appellant urged that in any case, even if his client is held liable for satisfying the award in all these cases, still liberty may be reserved to the appellant for recovery of this amount from the owner of the vehicle in question. He placed reliance on a number of decisions of the Supreme Court including that of Swarn Singh, supra. No doubt, in a given situation and on proved facts on record of the Tribunal below, such direction can be issued. However, on the basis of the evidence produced by the appellant-Insurance Company on record in all these cases, this plea cannot be accepted being without any material on record. 16. No other point is urged. 17. No doubt, in a given situation and on proved facts on record of the Tribunal below, such direction can be issued. However, on the basis of the evidence produced by the appellant-Insurance Company on record in all these cases, this plea cannot be accepted being without any material on record. 16. No other point is urged. 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, all these appeals filed by the appellant-Insurance Company are dismissed. 18. At this stage, Shri Ashutosh Sharma, learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants in FAO No. 123 of 2001 submitted that the amount payable to his clients may be ordered to be released to them. While allowing this prayer, it is ordered that so far amount payable to and falling to the share of respondent No. 1 in FAO No. 123 of 2001 is concerned, the same be remitted to his bank account, number whereof is given in prayer clause of CMP No. 863 of 2003. So far remaining amount is concerned, it will be reinvested till 31.12.2006. 19. Interim order(s), if any, shall stand vacated forthwith in all these appeals, as also all pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of, in view of disposal of the main appeals. No costs.