Arijit Pasayat, J. ( 1 ) LEAVE granted. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the insurer ) calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of HIGH COURT OF DELHI dismissing the appeal filed by it. ( 2 ) QUESTIONING the award made by the motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karkardooma courts, Delhi (in short the m. A. C. T. ), the appeal was filed before the High Court. By the aforesaid award the m. A. C. T. had held that the respondent No. 1 Kanti Devi (hereinafter referred to as the claimant ) was entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,24,800 together with 8 per cent interest from the date of filing of claim petition under section 166 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the act ) i. e. , 30. 11. 1998 till realisation of the award excluding certain periods (i. e. , from 30. 11. 1998 to 1. 8. 2000 and 10. 9. 2001 to 4. 2. 2002 ). The insurer was held liable to compensate the claimant. ( 3 ) BACKGROUND facts as projected by the claimant in the claim petition were that her son Pradeep Kumar lost his life on 4. 10. 1998 on account of vehicular accident involving Tata Tempo No. DL 1-B 8441 which was allegedly being driven rashly and negligently by Rohani Prasad, respondent no. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the driver ). The deceased was aged about 22 years at the time of the accident. The offending vehicle belonged to Devender kumar, the respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as the insured ). Before the Tribunal the driver and owner did not appear. ( 4 ) STAND of the insurer before M. A. C. T. was that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence, as the driving licence authorised driving of light motor vehicle (private), while driver was driving a transport vehicle (Tata truck-407 ). M. A. C. T. held that there was nothing to show that the driving licence was fake and that plying of the vehicle involved amounted to breach of conditions of the insurance policy issued by the insurer. It was held that the insurer was to satisfy the award, with right of recovery from the insured. M. A. C. T. held that there was nothing to show that the driving licence was fake and that plying of the vehicle involved amounted to breach of conditions of the insurance policy issued by the insurer. It was held that the insurer was to satisfy the award, with right of recovery from the insured. This part of observation of the M. A. C. T. which led to fastening of liability on the insurer was challenged before the High Court. By the impugned order the High Court dismissed the appeal holding that in view of the decision of this court in United India Insurance co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC), the insurance company cannot escape its liability to pay compensation to the claimant when it has been given right to recover the compensation from the insured. ( 5 ) IN support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High Court s view is untenable in view of what has been said by a three-Judge bench decision of this court in National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 acj 1 (SC ). There is no appearance on behalf of respondents in spite of service of notice. ( 6 ) IN Swaran Singh s case, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), this court dealt with scope and ambit of section 149 (2) (a) (ii) vis-a-vis proviso appended to sub-section (4) and sub-section (5) thereof. While dealing with cases where the driver who has been granted licence for one type of vehicle at the relevant time was driving another type of vehicle. In para 82 it was observed as follows: "section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables Central Government to prescribe the forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of the said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (f) road-roller; and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (f) road-roller; and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 10. They are goods carriage , heavy goods vehicle , heavy passenger motor vehicle , invalid carriage , light motor vehicle , maxicab , medium goods vehicle , medium passenger motor vehicle , motorcab , motor cycle , omnibus , private service vehicle , semi-trailer , tourist vehicle , tractor , trailer and transport vehicle . In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal. A person possessing a driving licence for motor cycle without gear , [sic. may be driving a vehicle] for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where holder of driving licence for light motor vehicle is found to be driving a maxicab , motorcab or omnibus for which he has no licence. In each case, on evidence led before the claims Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failure and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. " ( 7 ) IN para 94 the effect of a driving icence being found fake was considered, t was noted as follows: "the submission of Mr. Salve that in lehru s case, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC), this court has, for all intent and purport, taken away the right of insurer to raise a defence that the licence is fake does not appear to be correct. Salve that in lehru s case, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC), this court has, for all intent and purport, taken away the right of insurer to raise a defence that the licence is fake does not appear to be correct. Such defence can certainly be raised but it will be for the insurer to prove that the insured did not take adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the licence held by the-driver. " ( 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. ( 9 ) IN the instant case, the High Court did not go into the relevant questions at all and relying on Lehru s case, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC), held that the insurer has to pay the amount and recover from the insured. It has to be noted that in Swaran Singh s case, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), the earlier decision in Lehru s case (supra), was noted. In para 100 of the judgment, it was noted as follows: "although, as noticed hereinbefore, there are certain special leave petitions wherein the persons having (Sic. driving) the vehicles at the time when the accidents took place did not hold any licence at all, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not intend to set aside the said awards. Such awards may also be satisfied by the petitioners herein subject to their right to recover the same from the owners of the vehicles in the manner laid down therein. But this order may not be considered as a precedent. Such awards may also be satisfied by the petitioners herein subject to their right to recover the same from the owners of the vehicles in the manner laid down therein. But this order may not be considered as a precedent. " ( 10 ) THE essence of Lehru s case, 2003 acj 611 (SC), was delineated in paras 85 and 93 as follows: " (85) It may be true as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that a fake or forged licence is as good as no licence but the question herein, as noticed hereinbefore, is whether the insurer must prove that the owner was guilty of the wilful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance. In Lehru s case, the matter has been considered in some details. We are in general agreement with the approach of the Bench but we intend to point out that the observations made therein must be understood to have been made in the light of the requirements of law in terms whereof the insurer is to establish wilful breach on the part of the insured and not for the purpose of its disentitlement from raising any defence or the owners be absolved from any liability whatsoever. We would be dealing in some details with this aspect of the matter a little later. (93) The court, however, in Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC), must not read that an owner of a vehicle can under no circumstances has any duty to make any inquiry in this respect. The same, however, would again be a question which would arise for consideration in each individual case. " ( 11 ) THE decision in Swaran Singh s case, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), was not before either the M. A. C. T. or the High Court when the respective orders were passed. Therefore, we think it proper to remit the matter to the M. A. C. T. for fresh consideration. It shall permit the parties to lead such further evidence as they may intend to lead. The matter shall be decided keeping in view the principle enunciated by this court in Swaran Singh s case (supra ). ( 12 ) KEEPING in view long pendency of the matter, the M. A. C. T. would do well to dispose of the matter within six months from today. The matter shall be decided keeping in view the principle enunciated by this court in Swaran Singh s case (supra ). ( 12 ) KEEPING in view long pendency of the matter, the M. A. C. T. would do well to dispose of the matter within six months from today. The appeal is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs. Orders accordingly. --- *** --- .