JUDGEMENT 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (1), Sirmour District at Nahan (hereafter referred to as the Tribunal), in MAC Petition No. 07-N/2 of 1997, decided on 27-4-1998. The Cross-Objections filed by the claimant are also being disposed of along with this appeal. 2. The facts necessary for the decision of the case are that an ambulance bearing Registration No. HP-17-0871 was owned by respondent No.3, M/s. Ranbaxy Laboratories. On 25-9-1996, the said van was being driven by Kishan Chand, respondent No. 2. There was an accident between this ambulance and one scooter, as a result of which claimant Amar Chand suffered injuries and both bones of his left leg were fractured. The claimant filed a claim petition, which was contested by the owner, driver and Insurance Company. One of the defences raised by the Insurance Company was that the driver Kishan Chand did not have a valid driving license at the time of the accident and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable. 3. The only question which requires decision in this case is whether the driver held a valid driving license at the time of the accident and whether the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award? 4. The facts relevant for decision of this point are that, as observed above, the accident occurred on 25-9-1996. From the facts, which are not in dispute, it is clear that Kishan Chand was issued a driving license No. 7326-N/1992 to drive a light motor vehicle on 10-2-1992. This license was valid up to 10-2-1995 Kishan Chand did not get his driving license renewed. His driving license was renewed only on 8-1-1997 much after the accident took place. 5. It is contended by Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, that on the date of the accident, i.e. 25-9-1996, Kishan Chand did not hold any driving license. Therefore, he neither held an effective driving license nor was he duly licensed and, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable. On the other hand, Ms. It is contended by Mr. Rajnish Maniktala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, that on the date of the accident, i.e. 25-9-1996, Kishan Chand did not hold any driving license. Therefore, he neither held an effective driving license nor was he duly licensed and, as such, the Insurance Company is not liable. On the other hand, Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner-respondent No. 3, submits that to avoid its liability the Insurance Company must not only prove that the driver did not hold valid driving license but must also prove that he was disqualified from holding such driving license. 6. Before considering the facts of the case, it would be pertinent to refer to the provisions of the Insurance Policy Ex. R-1 and the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The relevant portion of the Policy relating to the person(s) permitted to drive the insured vehicle, reads as follows : "Any person including insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence." 7. Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that the Insurance Company is entitled to defend the action on the grounds specified therein. The relevant portion of the Act permits the Company to defend the cause on proof of the following grounds : (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely : xxxxxxxxx (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or 8. Section 2(10) of the Motor Vehicles Act defines driving license as follows: "2(10) "driving licence" means the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description." 9. According to Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no person is entitled to drive a motor vehicle unless he holds an effective driving license authorising him to drive such a class of vehicles. 10. According to Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, no person is entitled to drive a motor vehicle unless he holds an effective driving license authorising him to drive such a class of vehicles. 10. Section 9 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that any person who is not disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving license may apply and obtain a driving license. Section 9(3), in so far it is relevant, reads as follows: "9(3) If the applicant passes such test as may be prescribed by the Central Government, he shall be issued the driving licence : Provided that no such test shall be necessary where the applicant produces proof to show that - (a)(i) the applicant has previously held a driving licence to drive such class of vehicle and that the period between the date of expiry of that licence and the date of the application does not exceed five years, or". 11. Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the currency of license to drive motor vehicles. It provides different time periods for which different licenses for different classes of vehicles shall be valid. In the present case, the license issued was valid only for three years and admittedly it has been issued to drive a transport vehicle. The proviso to this Section reads as follows: Provided that every driving licence shall, notwithstanding its expiry under this sub-section, continue to be effective for a period of thirty days from such expiry." 12. Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for renewal of driving licenses. Section 15(1), insofar as it is relevant to the present case, reads as follows: "15(1) Any licensing authority may, on application made to it, renew a driving licence issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry: Provided that in any case where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal." 13. Section 19 provides for the various circumstances under which the licensing authority can disqualify the license holder. 14. It is in the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions that the contentions of the parties have to be considered. 15. Section 19 provides for the various circumstances under which the licensing authority can disqualify the license holder. 14. It is in the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions that the contentions of the parties have to be considered. 15. The case of the appellant is that the driving license expired on the date of expiry mentioned in the driving license. However, in view of the provisions of Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the same is deemed to be valid for a period of 30 days thereafter and in case the same is renewed within 30 days of the date of expiry then the renewal shall relate back to the date of its expiry. However, in case the renewal is done after 30 days then the driving license is deemed to be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. 16. Mr. Maniktala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, contends that if the renewal is not done within 30 days then thereafter the license holder holds no driving license and it cannot be said that he either holds an effective driving license or that he is duly licensed to drive the vehicle. He submits that, in fact, the driver holds no license at all after the expiry of 30 days and the renewal of license after 30 days can be effective only from the date the license is renewed. In the present case, the license had expired on 10-2-1995, the accident occurred on 25-9-1996 and the license was renewed on 8-1-1997. Therefore, he submits that on 25-9-1996 the driver had no license whatsoever and the Insurance Company could not be held liable. 17. Both sides have cited a number of judgements in support of their case. 18. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandar Madhav Tambe (1986 ACJ 874) was dealing with a case where the driver had obtained a learner driving license on 22-7-1997. Validity of this learner license expired on 21-11-1977. An accident took place on 4-7-1979 and after the accident, the driver obtained a fresh learner license on 7-7-1979 and regular driving license on 9-7-1979. The Bombay High Court held that the learner driving license was as good as a regular license. Validity of this learner license expired on 21-11-1977. An accident took place on 4-7-1979 and after the accident, the driver obtained a fresh learner license on 7-7-1979 and regular driving license on 9-7-1979. The Bombay High Court held that the learner driving license was as good as a regular license. The relevant portion of the policy in that case read as follows: "Provided that the person driving holds a valid driving licence at the time of the accident or had held a permanent driving licence (other than a learners licence) and is not disqualified from holding such a licence." (Emphasis supplied) The Bombay High Court held that the learners license was as good as a permanent driving license and further held that since the policy prescribed that the person should hold or should have held a valid driving license, the Insurance Company could not escape its liability. It would be pertinent to mention that this judgement was overruled by the Honble Supreme Court in India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandar Madhav Tambe (1996) 2 SCC 328 : (AIR 1996 SC 1150), in which the Apex Court held that a learners license could not and cannot be equated with the regular driving license. However, the other issue was neither considered nor decided. In my view, the judgement of the Bombay High Court turns on the language of the policy which provided that the driver either holds or had held a valid driving license. In this case the policy condition is absolutely different and provides that the driver should hold a driving license at the time of the accident. This authority is, therefore, clearly distinguishable. 19. A similar matter came up for consideration before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Malla Janaki (1990) 2 ACJ 1022). In this case, the accident had occurred on 27-10-1985. The original licence was issued on 18-10-1973 and was valid up to 20-11-1982, Thereafter, the license was not renewed and the driver applied for renewal after the accident had occurred on 20-2-1986 and the same was renewed on 20-10-1986. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the driver did not have a valid driving license and exonerated the Insurance Company. 20. The High Court of Patna took the opposite view in M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Abha Sinha, (1998 (2) TAC 581). The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the driver did not have a valid driving license and exonerated the Insurance Company. 20. The High Court of Patna took the opposite view in M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Abha Sinha, (1998 (2) TAC 581). The Patna High Court held as follows : "5. ...............Merely because of expiry of the period of licence and omission of the driver to get the licence renewed it cannot be said at any stretch of imagination that there is breach of condition of policy for which Insurance Company can be exonerated from the liability. As stated above, the driver was authorized to drive the transport vehicles and the vehicle was entrusted by the insured to the licensed driver and, therefore, in my considered opinion, this plea of the Insurance Company to absolve from the liability cannot be sustained in law." 21. The Karnataka High Court also dealt with this point in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohammed Sab Ali Sab Kaladagi (2000) 2 ACJ 1223). The accident in this case had taken place on 13-10-1992. The driving license had expired on 9-6-1988 and it was only renewed on 3-11-1992 after the accident had occurred. The Karnataka High Court interpreted the language of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) referred to above and held as follows : "5. The wording used as or assumes much importance in this case. According to the construction of this section, the Insurance Company can succeed only if the person was not duly licensed or he was disqualified from holding or obtaining the driving licence during the period of disqualification. According to the construction of the language either of the conditions has to be duly fulfilled. But in the policy issued the word and is used as conjunction. By the use of word and it goes to show that the insurance company has to prove that the driver was not only not duly licensed but was also disqualified for holding the licence. The word or and the word and used in the policy assumes much importance. There cannot be compromise between the word or and and . The plain language as it is read has to be understood. In this direction, Mr. B. S. Patil, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the observation as how the construction of the statute be understood. There cannot be compromise between the word or and and . The plain language as it is read has to be understood. In this direction, Mr. B. S. Patil, learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the observation as how the construction of the statute be understood. On page 96 of the Interpretation of Statutes by Maxwell it is stated as follows: "To suppress the mischief and advance the remedy .............It is said to be the duty of the Judge to make such construction of a statute as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy." 6. The another golden rule that is to be remembered is that the statute is capable of being interpreted in two ways. In the case on hand the claimants shall become the victims in the event the insurance company is exonerated. The very purpose of issuing the policy is to protect the third party risk. If the insurance company is allowed to go scot-free on this ground, the hardship would be caused to the claimants. Hence, in view of the impending danger that is likely to arise in the case of claimants, the beneficial interpretation has to come to the rescue of the claimants. It is oft-quoted that the duty is to provide the light and not to generate heat. Unless the insurance company can place any of the materials covered by Sections 19, 20, 130, 134 and 185, it can never be said that there was any disqualification to hold the licence. It goes without saying that when the specific contention of disqualification is taken by the insurance company, the burden is also on the insurance company to adduce the evidence that the driver was not duly licensed and was disqualified. No material evidence is adduced in this direction." 22. I am in respectful disagreement with the judgement of the Karnataka High Court. The interpretation given to the word or occurring in the Act and the word and occurring in the policy, in my opinion, is not correct. Section 149 is absolutely clear that the Insurance Company can defend a matter either by contending that a person is not duly licensed or by contending that such person has been disqualified for obtaining a driving license during the period of disqualification. The words of the policy were similar to the words used in the present case. Section 149 is absolutely clear that the Insurance Company can defend a matter either by contending that a person is not duly licensed or by contending that such person has been disqualified for obtaining a driving license during the period of disqualification. The words of the policy were similar to the words used in the present case. What the policy requires is that the person holds an effective driving license and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. The language of the Section as well as the policy is clear. The word and used in the policy, in my humble opinion, has been misconstrued in the aforesaid judgement. When the word and was used in the policy, it provides that the driver should satisfy both the conditions, (i) that he holds an effective driving license, and (ii) that he is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a license. 23. A similar view was taken by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hira Tripathi (2002) 2 ACJ 1400. In this case, the license had expired on 24-5-1998. The accident occurred on 12-11-1998. The license was subsequently renewed with effect from 20-11-1998 to 19-11-2001. A Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court relying on the observations of the Apex Court in Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy (1996 ACJ 1044) : (AIR 1996 SC 2627) held as follows : "8. Thus, each and every violation or infringement on the part of the insured cannot absolve the insurer from liability. In the present case, in the facts and circumstances, we find that the driver was having licence from the year 1989, it was renewed time and again and after the date of accident also it has been renewed. Thus, it is not the case of the insurer that the non-renewal of the driving licence of the driver was to the knowledge of the insured. In the instant case, on facts we find that insured had taken care to appoint a duly licensed driver for driving the vehicle. Thus, the insurer cannot escape the liability particularly when driver has not been disqualified as licence has been renewed." 24. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ketanbhai Bhagvandas Shah (2002) 3 ACJ 1477 : (2002 AIHC 2289) dealt with a similar point. Thus, the insurer cannot escape the liability particularly when driver has not been disqualified as licence has been renewed." 24. A Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Ketanbhai Bhagvandas Shah (2002) 3 ACJ 1477 : (2002 AIHC 2289) dealt with a similar point. In that case the license of the driver expired on 27-1-1995, the accident occurred on 19-3-1995 and the license was renewed with effect from 12-9-1998. The Policy condition in that case was identical to the policy conditions in the present case. The Gujarat High Court held as follows: "11.1 A plain reading of the exclusion clause indicates that any person may drive the vehicle insured provided firstly, such person holds an effective driving licence (within the meaning of the said Act), and secondly, that such driver is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. In other words, even if the driver of the vehicle did in fact hold an effective driving licence on the date of accident. It would still be open to the insurance company to contend and establish that, on the date of the accident, he was not qualified to hold or obtain such driving licence. This view must be upheld in view of the various contingencies which may arise in the normal course of human events. It could well be envisaged that a person who obtains an effective driving licence is perfectly qualified to obtain and hold such a driving licence on the date when it is issued. However, it is also possible that during the validity period of such licence, he may acquire a disqualification which prevents him from holding or obtaining such a licence. The simplest example of such a situation is where a driver, after obtaining a licence, suffers some physical disability such as loss of vision, loss of hearing, total amputation of one limb, etc. which would disqualify him from obtaining and holding a driving licence. Thus, a disqualification acquired during the validity period of a driving licence is also sufficient to bring into operation the exclusion clause in the policy. It cannot possibly be urged by a driver that once an effective driving licence is issued, having validity for a specified period, he remains qualified to drive the vehicle for that specified period, irrespective of disqualifications acquired during the period. 12. It cannot possibly be urged by a driver that once an effective driving licence is issued, having validity for a specified period, he remains qualified to drive the vehicle for that specified period, irrespective of disqualifications acquired during the period. 12. In the context of the above discussion, it becomes obvious that the view canvassed by the appellant insurance company requires to be accepted. In other words, in order to qualify for enforcement of the award against the insurer under Section 149(1) of the said Act, the driver of insured must firstly hold an effective driving licence on the date of the accident, if he, in fact, holds such a licence, it is nevertheless open to the insurance company to establish by appropriate evidence on record that after the issuance of the licence he acquired a disability, either physical or legal, on account of which, on the date of the accident, he was disqualified from holding or obtaining an effective driving licence. 12.1 This view is further supported by the language of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act quoted hereinabove. A plain reading of this clause would show that the insurance company is permitted by the statute to exclude driving by a person who is not duly licensed or by any person who has been disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence. This specific language of the statute cannot be construed except in one way. Obviously, the insurance company is authorized by statute not to cover two classes of person, the first of such class being a person who is not duly licensed, and the second class being those who may hold a driving licence, but who have been disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence after obtaining such licence. 12.2 It was also submitted by learned counsel for the claimant that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and must be construed accordingly, i.e. in favour of claimants and insured parties. It would be too much to extend the phrase benevolent piece of legislation to the extent where it renders violence upon the plain language of the statute as also upon the intention of the legislature. It would be too much to extend the phrase benevolent piece of legislation to the extent where it renders violence upon the plain language of the statute as also upon the intention of the legislature. As aforesaid, if the contention of respondent-claimant were to be accepted, the need for holding an effective driving licence on the date of the accident would be obviated, and Section 3 of the said Act would be rendered nugatory. If such a contention were to be accepted, every driver of a vehicle would feel confident that he essentially needs to obtain a driving licence only after the accident in order to establish that he was not disqualified from holding a driving licence. As aforesaid, such a view would render violence upon the intention of the legislature." 25. The Apex Court in Malla Prakasarao v. Malla Janaki (2004) 3 SCC 343, decided by a three Judge Bench, held as follows : "1. It is not disputed that the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle had expired on 20-11-1982 and the driver did not apply for renewal within thirty days of the expiry of the said licence, as required under Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is also not disputed that the driver of the vehicle did not have driving licence when the accident took place. According to the terms of the contract, the insurance company has not liability to pay any compensation where an accident takes place by a vehicle, driven by a driver without a driving licence. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the appeal." 26. The observations of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 : (AIR 2004 SC 1531) on this issue are also relevant. In para 4, the Apex Court has clearly stated that one of the questions raised before it was of cases where although license was granted to the driver concerned but on expiry thereof the same had not been renewed. The relevant observations of the Apex Court relatable to the present case are in paras 41, 45 and 46. These paragraphs read as follows : "41. The relevant observations of the Apex Court relatable to the present case are in paras 41, 45 and 46. These paragraphs read as follows : "41. However, clause (a) opens with the words "that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy", implying that the insurers defence of the action would depend upon the terms of the policy. The said sub-clause contains three conditions of disjunctive character, namely, the insurer can get away from the liability when (a) a named person drives the vehicle; (b) it was being driven by a person who did not have a duly granted licence; and (c) driver is a person disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence. xxx xxx xxx 45. Thus, a person whose licence is ordinarily renewed in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, despite the fact that during the interregnum period, namely, when the accident took place and the date of expiry of the licence, he did not have a valid licence, he could during the prescribed period apply for renewal thereof and could obtain the same automatically without undergoing any further test or without having been declared unqualified therefore. Proviso appended to Section 14 in unequivocal terms states that the licence remains valid for a period of thirty days from the day of its expiry. 46. Section 15 of the Act does not empower the authorities to reject an application for renewal only on the ground that there is a break in validity or tenure of the driving licence has lapsed, as in the meantime the provisions for disqualification of the driver contained in Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 will not be attracted, would indisputably confer a right upon the person to get his driving licence renewed. In that view of the matter, he cannot be said to be delicensed and the same shall remain valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry." 27. From a perusal of the bare provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as the judgements of the various Courts and especially the observations of the Apex Court in Swaran Singhs case (AIR 2004 SC 1531) (supra), it is clear that the insurance company can defend an action on the ground that the petitioner was not duly licensed on the date of the accident. Can a person whose license has expired and not renewed within thirty days of its expiry, as provided under Sections 14 and 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act, be considered to be duly licensed on the date of the accident? In my humble opinion, the answer to this question has to be in the negative. 28. The Apex Court in Swaran Singhs case (supra) in paras 45 and 46 quoted above has clearly laid down that the license remains valid only for a period of thirty days from the date of its expiry. The question as to what happens if the license is not renewed within thirty days has not been answered in this judgement. From the bare reading of the provisions as well as the interpretation given by the Honble Supreme Court it can be said that after thirty days of the expiry there is no driving license. The driver has neither an effective driving license nor can be said to be duly licensed. It would run counter to the very provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act if it is held that though the license had expired and not been renewed even within the time allowed in law, the driver is duly licensed. A driver, who permits his license to expire and does not get it renewed till after the accident, cannot claim that it should be deemed that the license is renewed retrospectively. The proviso to Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly provides that if the license is not renewed within thirty days of its expiry, the driving license shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal. This renewal can never be retrospective. Therefore, it has to be held that if the driving license is not renewed within thirty days it will only be a valid driving license from the date of its renewal. The driver cannot be deemed to be duly licensed on the date of accident if thirty days have already expired from the date of expiry of his license and the same has not been renewed within thirty days. 29. The other contention of Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua is that the Insurance Company must not only prove that the driver was not duly licensed but must also prove that he was disqualified from holding such a license. This contention cannot be accepted. 29. The other contention of Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua is that the Insurance Company must not only prove that the driver was not duly licensed but must also prove that he was disqualified from holding such a license. This contention cannot be accepted. The policy condition in the present case is very clear. According to it, the person must hold a valid driving license and should also not be disqualified from holding or obtaining such a driving license. If either of the conditions is not satisfied the Insurance Company can defend the action on the ground that there is violation of the terms of the policy and the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Apex Court in Swaran Singhs case (supra) has clearly held that Clause (a) of Section 149(2) is disjunctive in nature. The Insurance Company can avoid its liability either by showing that a named person was driving the vehicle or that it was being driven by a person who did not have a duly granted license or that the driver is a person disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving license. Reading both the policy and the Motor Vehicles Act conjointly the only reasonable interpretation is that the Insurance Company could avoid its liability if it could prove any of these three conditions. 30. One can imagine of a situation where even though a person may have a valid license, he, in fact, is disqualified from holding the same. For example, a 16 years old person by misrepresenting his age or filing forged documents obtains the driving license by showing that his age is 18 years. In this case even though the driver had a valid driving license, the Insurance Company can avoid its liability if it shows that the driver in fact was not qualified to obtain such a licence. Similarly, even after license has been acquired a person may acquire a disability which would disentitle him to hold such a license. He may suffer physical impairment to such an extent that he is not legally permitted to hold a driving license. Therefore, a disqualification acquired during the validity of the driving license is also sufficient to bring the exclusion clause into operation. 31. In view of the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that the arguments raised by the Insurance Company have to be accepted. Therefore, a disqualification acquired during the validity of the driving license is also sufficient to bring the exclusion clause into operation. 31. In view of the above discussion, it is abundantly clear that the arguments raised by the Insurance Company have to be accepted. In order to enforce the award against the Insurance Company the Court must be satisfied that the driver was duly licensed on the date of accident. Even if he is duly licensed, it is open to the Insurance Company to establish by leading appropriate evidence that he was either disqualified from obtaining such license or that he has been disqualified for retaining such a license due to physical or legal disability. To hold otherwise would amount to giving premium to persons who do not follow the Rule of Law. 32. The next submission made is that since the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial piece of legislation it must be construed in favour of the claimant. There can be no doubt that in case two interpretations are possible the one which is in favour of the claimant should be given. However, it would be too much to hold that violence should be done to the clear and plain language of the statute. The Court can protect the rights of the claimants by asking the Insurance Company to deposit the amount and recover it from the insured. However, there can be no sympathy with the owner or driver who violates the law. Sympathy can only be with the victims of the accident. It is their rights which have to be protected and not the rights of the owners of vehicles. If the contention of the learned counsel is accepted then people will feel free to drive vehicles without any license. 33. The last contention raised on behalf of respondent No. 3 is that since the driver had at one time held a valid driving license, therefore, there is no breach of policy on the part of the insured. Reliance is placed upon the judgement of the Apex Court in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, 1987 ACJ 411 : (AIR 1987 SC 1184); Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, 1996 ACJ 1044 : (AIR 1996 SC 2627); and Swaran Singhs case (supra). No doubt, the law is well settled that the Insurance Company must prove that the insured is guilty of breach of policy. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan, 1987 ACJ 411 : (AIR 1987 SC 1184); Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy, 1996 ACJ 1044 : (AIR 1996 SC 2627); and Swaran Singhs case (supra). No doubt, the law is well settled that the Insurance Company must prove that the insured is guilty of breach of policy. How and in what manner the breach is to be proved is a matter to be decided on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Apex Court in Swaran Singhs case (supra) while holding that the breach has to be proved by the Insurance Company also held as follows : "(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. (v) The Court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. xxx xxx xxx (vii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learners licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree." 34. When an employer employees a driver, it is his duty to check that the driver is duly licensed to drive the vehicle. Section 5 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides that no owner or person incharge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person to drive the vehicle if he does not fulfil the requirements of Sections 3 and 4 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The owner must show that he has verified the license. He must also take reasonable care to see that his employee gets his license renewed within time. In my opinion, it is no defence for the owner to plead that he forgot that the driving license of his employee had to be renewed. A person when he hands his motor vehicle to a driver owes some responsibility to society at large. Lives of innocent people are put to risk in case the vehicle is handed over to a person not duly licensed. A person when he hands his motor vehicle to a driver owes some responsibility to society at large. Lives of innocent people are put to risk in case the vehicle is handed over to a person not duly licensed. Therefore, there must be some evidence to show that the owner had either checked the driving license or had given instructions to his driver to get his driving license renewed on expiry thereof. In the present case, no such evidence has been led. 35. In the present case, the employer is a company and the employee was to drive an ambulance. There is no material placed on record by the employer to show as to when the driver was employed and whether his driving license was checked at the time when he was given employment. These facts were only within the knowledge of the employer and no other person could have proved these facts. The employer led no evidence in this regard and, therefore, adverse inference has to be drawn against the employer. 36. In view of the above discussion, the appeal of the Insurance Company is allowed and it is held that the Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay the compensation. However, in view of the fact that the Insurance Company has already deposited the amount of compensation, it would serve no purpose to permit it to withdraw the said amount and drive the claimant to another round of litigation to recover the compensation awarded from the owner. The amount deposited by it shall be released in favour of the claimant. The Insurance Company may recover the amount deposited by it along with interest from the owner by filing appropriate execution proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal without being required to file separate suit or proceedings. The present judgement shall be treated to be the decision of the dispute between the insurer and the owner. Cross-Objections No. 130/1999 37. Cross-objections for enhancement of compensation by the claimants are not maintainable in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company where its defences are limited. Hence, the cross-objections are rejected. 38. The appeal and the cross-objections are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Costs on the parties. Order accordingly.