1. The appeal in hand is outcome of a claim petition titled Aijaz Ahmad Mir Vs. Nazir Ahmad Mir, which appears to have been presented by the petitioner before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Anantnag. 2. The petitioner and respondent no.4/ appellant herein led evidence and after hearing the parties, the Tribunal has passed award dated 28.10.2003, hereinafter referred to as impugned award. In terms of the impugned award, the respondent no.4/ insurer has been saddled with the liability. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award, the appellant/ insurer has preferred the appeal in hand. 4. The moot point for consideration is, whether the driver/ insured has committed will-fill breach and whether the insurer/ appellant was not liable to satisfy the award? It is profitable to reproduce the issue no.2 herein: Whether the driver was not holding valid D/L at the time of accident? 5. The appellant/ insurer has examined Pirzada Noor-ud-Din, Licence Clerk, Regional Transport Office, Srinagar and Imtiyaz Ahmad Shah, Assistant, National Insurance Company as witnesses in order to prove the said issue. 6. Pirzada Noor-ud-Din, Licence Clerk of Regional Transport Office, Srinagar has deposed that the driver was having valid licence and was duly empowered to drive Medium Goods Vehicle, Light Motor Vehicle and Heavy Goods Vehicle. And further deposed that for driving passenger vehicles PSV endorsement is must, but there is no difference in driving the passenger bus and a Heavy Transport Vehicle. There is no evidence on the file that driver was not holding a valid licence or he was not duly licenced. 7. There is not an iota of evidence on the file suggesting the fact that cause of accident was that driver was having licence to drive particular type of vehicle and was driving another type of vehicle. 8. The learned Presiding Officer has held that the driver, Nazir Ahmad Ganaie, was holding a valid licence. It was for the insurer/appellant to prove that owner has committed willful breach. In order to prove the willful breach having been committed by the owner/ insured, it was for the appellant/ insurer to prove that the insured had the knowledge that driver was not having driving licence in order to drive offending vehicle. If the insurer fails to prove the willful breach, then the insurer cannot claim that the insurer is not liable. 9. Mr. Kawoosa, relying on the judgment of Honble Mr. If the insurer fails to prove the willful breach, then the insurer cannot claim that the insurer is not liable. 9. Mr. Kawoosa, relying on the judgment of Honble Mr. Justice, R. C. Gandhi, delivered in case National Insurance Co. Vs. Mst. Shah Mali & Ors argued that the driver was not holding a Valid licence and, PSV endorsement is must. The said judgment is on the point that PSV endorsement is must in terms of Rule 3(i)(a) of Motor Vehicle Rules. But the Apex Court in a case National Insurance Co.Ltd. Petitioner V. Swaran Singh and others, reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531, has held that if a driver is having a driving licence for driving a particular kind of vehicle but has driven another type of vehicle at the time of accident and that was the cause of accident then in that event it can be held that the owner has committed breach. If accident is outcome of any other cause then insurer cannot avoid liability. It is profitable to reproduce para-83 and 84 of the said judgment herein, which reads as under: - "83. Section lO of the Act provides for forms and contents of licences to drive. The licence has to be granted in the prescribed form. Thus, a licence to drive a light motor vehicle would entitle the holder there to drive the vehicle falling within that class or description. 84. 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 forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) Motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle 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. 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, maxi-cab, medium goods vehicle, medium passenger motor-vehicle, motor-cab, motorcycle, 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 motorcycle without gear for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for light motor vehicles is found to be driving a maxi-cab, motor- cab or omnibus for which he has no licence. In each case on evidence led before the 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. Thus in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the judgment relied upon by Mr. Kawoosa is not applicable in the present case. Keeping in view the above discussion, I am of the considered view that the impugned award has been correctly passed and the appellant has been rightly saddled with the liability. Mr. Lone stated at bar that he does not want to press the cross appeal and the same may be dismissed. Accordingly, the said appeal is dismissed, as not pressed. Having glance of the aforesaid discussion both the appeals are hereby dismissed. Registry is directed to disburse the amount to the claimants under rules after proper identification. Send down the record.