Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-These two appeals have been submitted against the common award dated 01.05.1998 made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaisalmer after a consolidated trial of Claim Cases No. 19/1995 and 42/1995 arising out of the same accident and, a short common question about liability of the insurer arises for consideration in these appeals and hence, are being disposed of by this common Judgment . 2. A brief reference to background facts would suffice. The claimants Hukmak Singh, Tima Bai and Rekha, Respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 in CMA No. 693/1998 are respectively the father, mother and wife of the deceased Magh Singh and they claimed compensation with the averments that the deceased was a driver of jeep RST 4367. On 09.05.1995 he started from Barmer to Jaisalmer with passengers in the said jeep. At about 8:00-9:00 PM, near village Dabla, the Non-applicant No. 1 Jhume Khan brought driving a truck bearing registration No. GQD 4009 from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and hit the jeep driven by Magh Singh, who sustained injures and died on the spot. Stating the age of deceased Magh Singh at 27 years and his monthly income of Rs. 2,000/-, on various counts the applicants claimed compensation of Rs. 18,25,000/-arraying the truck driver Jhume Khan as Non-applicant No. 1; the truck owner Amir Miya as Non-applicant No. 3 and his power of attorney holder Sohrab Khan as Non-applicant No. 2; and the Oriental Insurance Company (appellant) being insurer of the truck as Non-applicant No. 4. Respondent No. 1 Premraj in CMA No. 699/1998 narrated the same accident and stated his capacity as one of the occupants of the jeep RST 4367 and claimed compensation of Rs. 8,27,000/-against the same non-applicants on account of serious injuries sustained by him in the accident. 3. The owner of the truck GQD 4009 did not file any reply and remained ex parte. However, a reply to the claim application was submitted by the Non-applicants No. 1 and 2 and while stating general denial of the claim averments, it was submitted that the accident was caused by rash and negligent driving of deceased Magh Singh himself and there was no mistake on the part of the truck driver and it was also alleged that the persons relating to the jeep were required to be impleaded as parties to the claim application. However, it was stated that the truck was insured and, therefore, the entire liability was of the insurer. A separate reply was filed by the insurer, Non-applicant No. 4, the appellant herein. While admitting the factum of accident and the truck GQD 4009 being insured with it, other claim averments were left to be proved by the claimants and the amount claimed as compensation was also disputed. In additional submissions, the averments were taken by the appellant to the effect that unless these matters were proved by the insured, viz., that he was the actual owner of the vehicle on the date of accident; that the vehicle was being driven by a valid licence holder; that the driver was plying the vehicle for his benefit, in his control, employment and directions; and that the vehicle was being plied under a valid permit and fitness, no liability could be affixed on the insurer. It was further averred that the insurer reserves its right to file rejoinder on the owner supplying the documents of insurance. It may be pointed out that in the reply filed in Claim Case No. 42/1995 relating to Prem Raj, a line was added in Para 2 of additional pleas to the effect that there was a violation of policy condition as driver Jhume Khan was not a valid licence holder and he had a licence for "LMV" whereas the vehicle in question was "HMV" and, therefore, company was not responsible. However, even this cursory averment is not inserted in the reply submitted in claim case No. 19/1995 of Hukam Singh and others. Issues in Claim Case No. 42/1995 were framed on 18.01.1997 whereas they were framed in Claim Case No. 19/1995 on 01.04.1997. 4. Separate evidence was led in both the claim cases. While claimants examined themselves in respective claim cases, Sohrab was examined as NAW-2/1 in Claim Case No. 42/1995 on 10.09.1997 and an eye-witness to the accident AW-4 Dalpat Singh was examined in Claim Case No. 19/1995 on 19.09.1997. Thereafter, when both the matters were pending for evidence of the insurer, on 012.1997, the Tribunal proceeded to consolidate to trial of both the cases and the insurer examined Sagarmal, NAW-1. Thereafter, a witness Dr. Thereafter, when both the matters were pending for evidence of the insurer, on 012.1997, the Tribunal proceeded to consolidate to trial of both the cases and the insurer examined Sagarmal, NAW-1. Thereafter, a witness Dr. Gajendra Parmar, AW-5 was examined on 03.01.1998 in relation to the injures of the claimant Prem Raj and when no further evidence was led by the non-applicants, then the evidence was closed on 26.03.1998. 5. After hearing the parties finally, the Tribunal proceeded to pass the common award on 01.05.1998. The learned Judge of the Tribunal, after referring to the pleadings and issues in the respective claim cases, took up for consideration Issue No. 1 in both the cases together and after a thorough consideration of the evidence on record, decided the said issue of rash and negligent driving by the Non-applicant No. 1 Jhume Khan, his causing the accident and resulting injuries to Magh Singh and Prem Raj, and death of Magh Singh due to the injuries in favour of the claimants. Issue No. 2 in the respective claim cases related to quantum of compensation on which the learned Judge found the claimants in Claim Case No. 19/1995 entitled to a compensation amount of Rs. 3,10,000/-for death of Magh Singh whereas the injured claimant Prem Raj was found entitled to a compensation amount of Rs. 96,059.63. Issue No. 3 in Case No. 19/1995 and Issue No. 5 in Case No. 42/1995 both related to the question of want of the persons related to jeep RST 4367 as parties and the same were also decided against the non-applicants because the truck driver was found responsible for the accident. Issues No. 5 and 4 in the respective claim cases related to a vague plea of the insurer about use of the vehicle in the control of the owner on valid permit and fitness and it was found that the facts so stated in additional submissions were not proved as the Non-applicant No. 4 failed to lead any such evidence and, therefore, these issues were decided against the insurer. 6. Issue No. 4 in Claim Case No. 19/1995 and Issue No. 3 in Claim Case No. 42/1995 both related to the want of driving licence with Non-applicant No. 1 Jhume Khan and resultant violation of policy conditions. 6. Issue No. 4 in Claim Case No. 19/1995 and Issue No. 3 in Claim Case No. 42/1995 both related to the want of driving licence with Non-applicant No. 1 Jhume Khan and resultant violation of policy conditions. After considering oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Judge found that the driver Jhume Khan was holding a valid licence for driving a light motor vehicle and the licence was not for driving a truck i.e. a heavy vehicle. However, on the assertion of the insurer of violation of policy conditions, the learned Judge examined the conditions stated in the insurance policy Exhibit D. 1 which, inter alia, were to the effect that the driver must either be having an effective licence or must not have been declared disqualified to have the licence and there was no evidence to establish that the driver was disqualified to drive the heavy vehicle. The learned Judge was of opinion that his disqualification has not been proved by the insurer and, therefore, this contention of violation of policy conditions could not be accepted. 7. On the considerations aforesaid, the claim applications were allowed and the award of Rs. 3,10,000/-and Rs. 96,060/-was made on 01.05.1998 in favour of the respective claimants with directions about deposit and disbursement. 8. Aggrieved by the award dated 01.05.1998, the insurer has filed these appeals raising the ground that at the time of accident, the driver Jhume Khan was holding licence to drive a light motor vehicle only and not a heavy transport vehicle and, therefore, his driving of the truck was clearly a violation of policy conditions and the insurer is absolved of its liability. Making submissions on behalf of the appellant-insurer, learned Counsel strenuously contended that the breach of policy conditions in the present case was amply established on record and the insurer has led evidence also and proved that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the truck in question which falls in the category of a heavy transport vehicle. Learned Counsel while relying upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company vs. Gian Chand, 1997 ACJ 1065, contended that this was clearly a defence available to the insurer and when it was proved on record that the truck was being driven by a person having no license to drive it, the insurer-appellant ought to have been exonerated. Learned Counsel relied upon the decisions of various High Courts including that in Prakash vs. Hanumanthraya, reported in 2000 ACJ 604 , wherein a person having a licence to drive light motor vehicle when found driving a transport vehicle, it was held by a Karnataka High Court that the insurer was not liable. Learned Counsel also relied upon a decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sadanadan, 2001 ACJ 1368, wherein a driver having licence to drive light motor vehicle was found driving the offending but which was a heavy motor vehicle, and the Kerla High Court held that the insurer was absolved of its liability. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the submissions by the appellant are of no avail in view of the later decision of the Honble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), wherein the Honble Supreme Court has ruled that in order to avoid its liability towards the insured, the Insurance Company has to prove that the insured, was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling conditions of the policy and that mere invalid licence or disqualification of the driver are not the defences available to the Insurance Company and what is required to be proved is the breach on the part of the insured and the breach having a direct co-relation with the accident. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the entire record, this Court is clearly of opinion that the present appeals remain totally devoid of substance and deserve to be dismissed. 10. The contention sought to be made by the appellant-insurer in the present case are fundamentally baseless. A reference to the reply averments as made hereinbefore makes it evident that the insurer took all general pleas purported to be of its defences for avoiding the liability and it was stated in the manner that unless the facts stated in Paragraphs 2 to 6 of the reply were established by the insured, the insurer may not be held liable. In fact, the plea that Jhume Khan was not having a valid licence and it resulted in breach of policy conditions was not even raised in the reply in Case No. 19 /1995 and a cursory line to this effect was added in the other reply filed later in Case No. 42/1995. Even while leaving this aspect of want of specific pleadings aside, what is significant to notice is that nowhere the insurer has taken any specific plea that the insured was guilty of negligence, or of want of reasonable care in adherence to the policy conditions; and it was not the case of the insurer that the vehicle was handed over by the insured to be driven by an unlicensed driver without taking reasonable care in fulfilling the policy conditions. 11. In National Insurance Company vs. Swaran Singh, 2004 A.C.J. 1 (SC), the Honble 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 defenses available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to proved 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 licensed driver......." 12. 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. 13. Learned Counsel for appellant vehemently contended that the insurer has established in this case that the driver was not holding licence to drive a heavy transport vehicle like truck and this fact remains undeniable in view of the copy of licence produced by the insurer and, therefore, the insurer should be absolved of its liability. 13. Learned Counsel for appellant vehemently contended that the insurer has established in this case that the driver was not holding licence to drive a heavy transport vehicle like truck and this fact remains undeniable in view of the copy of licence produced by the insurer and, therefore, the insurer should be absolved of its liability. The contention remains wanting in further requirements of proving that the driver although possessing licence for one type of vehicle, when found driving another type, this itself was the main or contributory cause of the accident. 14. This Court following the decision in Swaran Singhs case (Supra) has held in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Jamna Devi & Ors., 2004 R.A.R. 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 find 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 Honble Supreme Court in Swaran Singhs case (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 Honble 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 pleaded, nor any evidence has been led by the insurer nor any material is available on record so as to countenance such ground. 17. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the contentions sought to be raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer are of little avail. 16. In the present cases, neither any such nexus is pleaded, nor any evidence has been led by the insurer nor any material is available on record so as to countenance such ground. 17. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the contentions sought to be raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer are of little avail. The insurer has merely suggested a casual plea and by referring to the term stated in driving licence of Jhume Khan has remained rest contended as if it was required to be absolved of its liability by merely showing that the driver was not possessing licence for the kind of vehicle he was driving and such stand clearly falls short of the requirements of law as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Swaran Singhs case (Supra). 18. Another feature of this case could be noticed from the condition stated by the insurer in its printed insurance policy (Exhibit D/1) on a heading about "persons or classes of persons entitled to drive." Relevant conditions which has been stated in English and Hindi in the policy issued by the insurer could be read in these two versions in juxtaposition as under: Any person including insured provided that a person driving hold an effective driving license at the time of accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. Chfer lfgr dksbZ Hkh O;fä tks xkM+h pykrk gks ,oa nq?kZVuk ds le; ftlds ikl izHkkoh MªkbZfoax ykbZlsal gks ;k ls ykbZlsal dks ikus esa v;ksf "kr fd;k x;k gksA ftls MªkbZfoax ykbZlasl j[kus es ;k After reading the Hindi version, the learned Judge of the Tribunal has found thus,- ^^blh “krZ esf[kr gS fd ;k rks izHkkoh MªkbZofjax ykbZlsUla ;g mYysx ykbZlsUl gks ;k ftls MªkbZofjxa j[kus ds fy, vFkok ,lss ykbZlsUl dks ikus esX; ?sv;ksf "kr ugha fd;k x;k gks] krZ Hkh gSaA vFkkZr ;fn dksbZ O;fä bl izdkj dk ykbZlsUl ikus ds fy, v;ksX; ugha gks] rks mls okgu pykus ds fy, achek diuh dh vksj ls vLohd`r ugha ekuk tk ldrkA vr% bl krZ dks mYya?ku fd;k x;k gks] ,lsugha ik;k tkrk gS] D;ksa a ;g Lohdkj fd vizkFkhZ la[;k pkj ds lk{kh lkxjey Lo;a us izfrijh{k.k esEes[kka vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d Hkkjh okgu pykus ;ksfd;k gSa fd og ugha crk ldrk fd tqX; Fkk ;k ughaA vr% mldk v;ksX; gksuk] vizkFkhZ la[;k pkj lkfcr ugha dj ldk gSaA** 20-The observations and findings aforesaid cannot be said to be erroneous after reading the Hindi version of the policy condition. The conjunction "and" before the words "is not disqualified" as stood in the english version has been put in Hindi version with the word " " (Or) making it a condition in the alternative rather than in conjunction with effective driving licence. The ambiguity in a clause in the policy, which is a document printed by the insurer itself , cannot enure to the benefit of the insurer and, on the contrary, while dealing with the beneficial provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, which are meant for providing relief to the victims of motor accidents, such ambiguity operates against the insurer. 21. Viewed from any angle, the Tribunal cannot be said to have erred in holding the insurer liable to satisfy the award. The impugned award remains just and valid and calls for no interference in appeal. No other point survives for consideration. 22. As a result of aforesaid, both CMA No. 693/1998 and CMS No. 699/1998 fail and are dismissed with costs.