Judgment Ashutosh Mohunta, J. 1. The insurer has filed the present appeal against the judgment of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Patiala dated 13.1.1997 by which a compensation of Rs.25,000/- was awarded to the respondent-claimant. 2. The only point raised by counsel for the appellant is that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured-as the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence as the licence was fake. 3. The question whether the Insurance Company can escape its liability from indemnifying the insured in case of a fake or invalid driving licence has been answered by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. (2004-1)136 P.L.R. 510 (S.C.), wherein it has been held as under:- (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in Sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. 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 the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicle by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. 4. The view has also been taken by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and Ors. (2003-2)134 P.L.R. 124 (S.C.). 5. An owner of a vehicle can only verify about the driving licence of the driver by verifying the stamp of the Regional Transport Authority on the driving licence. The owner has no other means to verify the genuineness of a driving licence. Ltd. v. Lehru and Ors. (2003-2)134 P.L.R. 124 (S.C.). 5. An owner of a vehicle can only verify about the driving licence of the driver by verifying the stamp of the Regional Transport Authority on the driving licence. The owner has no other means to verify the genuineness of a driving licence. Once an employer employs a driver after proper care, then the Insurance Company cannot be absolved of its liability to indemnify the insured on account of an invalid or fake driving licence because the Insurance Company has not led any evidence to prove that the insured was guilty of any negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver. 6. Counsel for the Insurance Company contends that as the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid license, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. However, the Tribunal has found that the number of the driving licence was not clear and further that the driving licence was renewed by the District Transport Officer. Sangrur. This itself shows that the owner of the offending vehicle had taken reasonable care before he employed the driver. 7. In view of the aforementioned judgments, the Insurance Company is held liable to indemnify the insured. Resultantly, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. Cross Objection No. 58-11-1997 8. As far as the cross-objection filed by the claimants are concerned, it has been pointed out by Mr. Aggarwal that the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded to the claimant is highly inadequate inasmuch as there is disability of 15% due to stiffness of the left ankle and mild stiffness of the left knee. It is submitted that Dr. Subhash Chand, AW-2 had opined that the claimant would be unable to walk without support. It is further submitted that the claimant remained in the hospital for treatment for two and half months. It is also contended that the claimant is unable to do agricultural work and that he had employed two servants to look after him. It is lastly contended that the disability of 15% suffered by the claimant was permanent in nature. 9. It is further submitted that the claimant remained in the hospital for treatment for two and half months. It is also contended that the claimant is unable to do agricultural work and that he had employed two servants to look after him. It is lastly contended that the disability of 15% suffered by the claimant was permanent in nature. 9. A perusal of the case file shows that although the claimant has averred that he had spent Rs.70,000/- to Rs.80,000/- on his treatment but no evidence has been brought on record to show that the claimant had spent the said amount. The Tribunal has given cogent reasons for awarding Rs.25,000/- as compensation. In the absence of any evidence on record that the claimant has incurred huge expenditure for his treatment and also in the absence of any evidence with regard to pecuniary loss suffered by the claimant, 1 am unable to grant any further compensation. In view of this, the compensation as awarded by the M.A.C.T. vide its judgment dated 13.1.1997 is upheld. Accordingly, the cross-objection filed by the claimant are dismissed. R.M.S. Appeal dismissed.