JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals have been submitted against the common award dated 4-9-1998 in Claim Case Nos. 6/1997 and 67/1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Balotra after a consolidated trial of the two claim cases arising out of the same accident and, therefore, are being disposed of by this common judgment. A short question about 'Against judgment and Award of K.K. Aacharya, Judge, M.A.C.T., Balotra, D/4-9-1998. the liability of the insurer arises for consideration in these appeals filed by the insurer and hence brief background facts in relation thereto would suffice. 2. The claimants Sakaram and Ridmal, respondent No. 1 in the respective appeals filed their respective Claim Applications with the submissions that on 9-10-1995 at about 8-9 am in the morning, they were sitting at the shop of Marudhar Krishi Seva Kendra, at bus stand Padru when the bus driver Ganpatram brought driving a bus bearing registration No. RJY 9611 rashly and negligently and hit the claimants causing the accident which resulted in serious injuries to the claimants. While stating the liability of the driver of the bus Ganpatram and its owner Baksu Devi, it was also stated that the Appellant National Insurance Company was the insurer of the vehicle in question at the relevant time and all of them were jointly and severally liable for compensation. While stating different component of the claim for compensation, the claimant Sakaram in Claim Case No. 6/1997 claimed an amount of Rs. 1,14,500/- on treatment expenditure, attendant, pains and sufferings and so also 20% reduction in working capacity. The other claimant Ridmal in Claim Case No. 67/1997 claimed an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation on treatment expenditure, attendant, pains and sufferings, loss of income and permanent disablement. 3. The owner of the bus and so also the driver, non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 remained ex parte and the claim cases were contested by the appellant, non-applicant No. 3 by filing similar replies to the claim applications wherein, inter alia, it was averred that the liability of the insurer has come an end for the reason that the vehicle was being used in violation of the policy conditions and one of the specific ground taken was that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence. Other averments of the claimants relating to the quantification of compensation were also denied. 4. Other averments of the claimants relating to the quantification of compensation were also denied. 4. The Tribunal framed the relevant issues requisite for consideration of the claim cases and recorded the evidence, in which, the claimants examined Sakaram as AW-1, Ridmal as AW-2, Abhay Singh as AW-3 and Babu Singh as AW-4 and closed the evidence on 3-9-1998. On that date itself, it was specifically given out on behalf of the appellant insurer that they were not seeking to lead any evidence and final arguments were also heard and on the next date i.e. 4-9-1998, the award impugned was passed. 5. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after a thorough consideration of the evidence produced on record, decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimants and it was held that the vehicle in question was owned by the non-applicant No. 1 Baksu Devi and was driven by non-applicant No. 2 Ganpatram and it was insured with the appellant National Insurance Company and the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving by Ganpatram and as a result thereof the claimant Sakaram received grievous injuries including fracture of the bones and the other claimant Ridmal received Simple injuries. For quantification of the amount of compensation, after referring to the evidence produced on record, the learned Judge found the claimant Sakararn entitled to a compensation of Rs. 28,000/-, whereas Ridmal, other claimant was found entitled to a compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. 6. The general objections of the insurer of violation of policy conditions as involved in issue No. 4 were decided against the insurer for want of evidence. Issue No. 3 related to the question as to whether the driver was not holding a valid driving licence and, therefore, it was a violation of policy condition ? On this aspect, the learned Judge considered the objections of the insurer that though the driver was holding a licence, the same was not valid for heavy transport vehicle and the endorsement of heavy transport vehicle was made on the licence only on 10-10-1995 and, therefore, on the date of the accident i.e. 9-10-1995, he was not holding a valid licence. The learned Judge was of opinion that the said driver was never declared disqualified to hold a licence and he was in fact having a licence which was extended from 10-10-1995 to drive heavy vehicle also and, therefore, it could not be assumed that he was not qualified to drive a heavy vehicle on 9-10-1995. The policy carried a condition that the person driving must hold an effective driving licence and was not disqualified from holding or obtaining such licence and the driver Ganpatram was, of course, having a licence and was never disqualified from holding such a licence. The learned Judge also commented that the insurer has not led any evidence in this respect. 7. In view of the findings on all the relevant issues, the Tribunal passed an award for a sum of Rs. 28,000/- in favour of the claimant Sakaram and for a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in respect of claimant Ridmal and allowed both of them interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of claim application i.e. 31-3-1997. 8. A perusal of the record of the Tribunal shows that although the non-applicant Nos. 1 and 2 did not appear to contest the claim cases, yet at the request of the parties, the cases were placed before Lok Adalat on 12-7-1997 where the appellant insurer settled the matter for payment of Rs. 20,000/- to Sakaram and Rs. 10,000/- to Ridmal; but the settlement was "Subject to confirmation of policy and DL." However, thereafter it was given out before the Tribunal on behalf of the appellant insurer that according to the facts available with them, at the time of accident the driver was not holding a valid driving licence and, therefore, submitted that the conditional compromise be cancelled and the matter be put to trial. Thereafter the replies were filed by the insurer and the cases were tried and decided as aforesaid. 9. The appellant insurer has sought to maintain these appeals with the submission that the driver obtained the driving licence in the year 1973 but he was authorised to drive a light motor vehicle only and the endorsement authorising him to drive heavy motor vehicle was made only on 10-10-1995 whereas the accident took place on 9-10-1995 and on that day he was not authorised to drive heavy motor vehicle. The observations made by the Tribunal in that regard have been assailed as incorrect. The respondents, on the other hand, have duly supported the award passed by the Tribunal. 10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire record, this-Court is clearly of opinion that the present appeals remain wholly devoid of substance and deserve to be dismissed. 11. The contentions sought to be made by the appellant Insurer remain entirely redundant and are of no avail for the fundamental fact that the appellant insurer has not led any evidence in this case. Moreover, it is not the case of the appellant insurer even in the replies submitted before the Tribunal that the insured has knowingly handed over the vehicle to be driven by a person not holding a valid driving licence. 12. In National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACC CJ 1 : ( AIR 2004 SC 1531 , Para 105), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically held that, "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 or failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licenced driver............" 13. The insurer has totally failed to show that the insured was guilty of negligence or did not take reasonable care or knowingly handed over the vehicle to be driven by a person not holding a valid licence. For want of such essential ingredients, the plea sought to be raised by the insurer remains hollow and does not lead to the result of any finding that there was any violation of policy conditions by the insured for which the insurer could be exonerated, 14. Moreover, it is not in dispute that the driver was possessing licence at least for one type of the vehicle and according to the insurer he was found driving another type of vehicle. In the face of such allegations, the onus was heavy upon the appellant insurer to show that this fact of holding licence for one type of vehicle and driving another type was the main or contributory cause of accident. In the face of such allegations, the onus was heavy upon the appellant insurer to show that this fact of holding licence for one type of vehicle and driving another type was the main or contributory cause of accident. This Court following the decision in Swaran Singh's case, ( AIR 2004 SC 1531 ) (supra) has held in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Jamna Devi, 2004 RAR 456 (Raj) thus, "If driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle and he is found driving another type of vehicle is not main or even contributory cause of accident then the Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability. The reason is plain and simple. The nexus is required to be found out between the breach and between the cause of accident. If there is no nexus then the Insurance Company cannot avoid its liability under the contract as the breach can be said to be only a technical breach of condition and the accident is not result of that breach........." 15. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh's case, ( AIR 2004 SC 1531 ) (supra) has specifically ruled to the effect that in different cases, on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle was the main or contributory cause of the accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has termed this kind of breach of condition as merely "a technical breach" and that the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability merely on that basis. 16. In the present cases, neither any such nexus is available on record nor any evidence has been led by the insurer so as to countenance such ground. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Corporation Limited v. Kanti Devi, 2005 AIR SCW 3282. and strenuously contended that the insurer has a right to raise the defence of validity of the licence of the driver and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that the insurer can take a defence that the driver did not have the requisite driving licence to drive a particular type of vehicle and, therefore, such defence deserves to be considered particularly on the admitted entries in the driving licence. This submission by the learned counsel for the appellant is also of no substance. In the case sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was concerned with a case where the Tribunal, despite raising of the objection by the insurer about validity of driving licence held that there was nothing to show that the licence for other type of vehicle was fake and plying of the vehicle involved amounted to breach of conditions of insurance policy and it was held that the insurer was to satisfy the award with right of recovery from the insured. The High Court also upheld the observation of the Tribunal which led to fastening of the liability on the insurer. It was found by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in appeal that the High Court did not go into the relevant questions at all but then found that Swaran Singh's case AIR 2004 SC 1531 was not before the Tribunal or the High Court when the respective orders were passed and, therefore, the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration permitting the parties to lead such further evidence as they might intend. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, observed (2005 AIR SCW 3282) (Para 8) "Obviously, defence can be raised by the insurer about the licence being fake. By analogy, the insurer can also take a defence that the driver did not have the requisite driving licence to drive a particular type of vehicle. Such defence can be raised and it will be for the insurer to prove that the insured did not take adequate care and caution to verify genuineness or otherwise of the licence held by the driver. The effect of the evidence in this regard has to be considered by the concerned Tribunal." 18. Kanti Devi's case, (2005 AIR SCW 3282) (supra), instead of supporting the submission on behalf of the insurer in the present case, goes directly against it. In the present case, the insurer has failed to lead any evidence and has totally failed to prove the want of care and caution on the part of the insured. Kanti Devi's case, (2005 AIR SCW 3282) (supra), instead of supporting the submission on behalf of the insurer in the present case, goes directly against it. In the present case, the insurer has failed to lead any evidence and has totally failed to prove the want of care and caution on the part of the insured. Moreover, as no ticed hereinabove, the evidence of the claimants in the consolidated trial was closed on 39-1998 and that very day, the appellant insurer voluntarily stated that no evidence was to be led by it and final arguments were heard that very day and in fact the award itself was passed the very next day. It is not the case of the appellant insurer that it wanted to lead any evidence but the same was denied by the Tribunal on any invalid reason or incorrect assumption. The appellant insurer having totally failed to prove the necessary ingredients to substantiate the plea raised by it, the plea was bound to fail and has rightly been rejected. 19. The result of the discussion aforesaid is that these appeals turn out to be wholly baseless and deserve to be dismissed. 20. Both these appeals, SBCMA 754/1998 and SBCMA 753/1998 are, therefore, dismissed with costs.Appeal dismissed. *******