VINEY MITTAL, J. ( 1 ) AN accident took place on 9,6. 1996 between jeep bearing registration No. PL 5c-A 8789 and truck bearing registration No. HR-39 0121, As a result of the aforesaid accident, Roshanlal a passenger travelling in the jeep died. The dependants of the deceased Roshanlal filed the present claim petition. ( 2 ) LEARNED Tribunal on the basis of the material available on the record found that both the drivers of the vehicles, namely, jeep as well as the truck were jointly negligent. Consequently, the claimants were held entitled to compensation, which was assessed at Rs, 4,03,200. A plea was raised by National Insurance Co. Ltd. that the driver of the truck which was insured with the company was not possessing a valid driving licence. However, the aforesaid plea was rejected by the learned Tribunal and it was held that although the original licence was not valid but the same had ben renewed, National Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed the present appeal. ( 3 ) TWO arguments have been raised by mr. L. M. Suri, the learned senior counsel appearing for National Insurance Co. Ltd. Firstly, it has been argued that the driver of the offending truck was not possessing a valid driving licence and, therefore, the company appellant was not liable to pay any compensation to claimants. Secondly, it has been argued that, in any case, once both the drivers of the vehicles involved in the accident, i. e. , the truck as well as jeep had been found to be negligent, then the liability for payment of compensation should have been apportioned between national Insurance Co. Ltd. , the insurer of the offending truck and Oriental Insurance co. Ltd. , the insurer of the offending jeep in equal shares. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel relied upon the case of Narinderpal Singh v. Punjab state, 1989 ACJ 708 (Pandh ). ( 4 ) I have duly considered both the contentions of the learned senior counsel. ( 5 ) SO far as the first contention of the learned counsel with regard to the driving licence of the offending truck being fake is concerned, the said argument is not available to the insurer company, in view of the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC ). Ltd. v. Swaran singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC ). In the aforesaid case, it has been laid down by the Supreme court that mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time are not in themselves relevant defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third party. In these circumstances, first argument of learned senior counsel is without any force and is rejected. However, the second argument of the learned senior counsel deserves to be accepted. A finding of fact has been recorded by the tribunal that drivers of both the offending vehicles, i. e. , the truck as well as the jeep were equally rash and negligent. Whereas the truck in question was insured with the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. , the jeep involved in the accident was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. In these circumstances, it is only natural that the liability of both the insurance companies should be equal. The judgment of Narinderpal's case, 1989 ACJ 708 (Pandh), relied upon by the learned counsel duly supports the aforesaid argument. ( 6 ) CONSEQUENTLY, it is held that the amount of compensation shall be payable jointly and severally by all respondents. The liability of National Insurance Co. Ltd. shall be shared equally by Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. The present appeal is partly allowed with the aforesaid modification in the award of the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal. Appeal partly allowed. - .