JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal by the appellant-Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 16.9.2003 passed by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 61 of 2002 whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,37,088/- for the death of the deceased in a motor vehicles accident. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.12.2001, the deceased Mahadeo was going on his cycle to attend his job. While he reached kandara More, a truck bearing Registration No. BR-17A-9199 came in a very high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased who succumbed to the injuries. The claimants further case is that the deceased, aged 35 years, was working in Lohapatti colliery as Mining Loader and was getting a salary of Rs. 7137/- per. month. 3. The Tribunal came to a finding that the home-taking salary of the deceased was Rs. 5632/- and after deducting 1/3rd out of the same, monthly dependency comes to Rs. 4196/-. Considering the age of the deceased and the monthly dependency, the Tribunal assessed compensation at Rs. 5,37,088/-. 4. Mr. P.C. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, assailed the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the driver, on the relevant date of accident, was not holding a valid driving licence. Learned Counsel further submitted that since the driver was not holding valid driving licence, award ought not to have been given against the appellant- Insurance Company. 5. From perusal of the judgment, it appears that the Tribunal considered the evidence adduced by the parties and finally came to a finding that even assuming that the driving licence of the driver was fake, there is no evidence on record on behalf of the Insurance Company to prove the fact that the owner of the vehicle knowing fully well that the driving licence of the driver was fake, allowed the driver to drive the vehicle. The Tribunal also recorded a finding that before handing over the vehicle to the driver, the owner was shown the driving licence by the driver. 6. The law with regard to liability of the Insurance Company in cases where driver was holding a fake driving licence, has been settled by the Supreme Court. In a recent decision in the case of Lal Chand v. Oriental Insurance Co. 6. The law with regard to liability of the Insurance Company in cases where driver was holding a fake driving licence, has been settled by the Supreme Court. In a recent decision in the case of Lal Chand v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , the Supreme Court held as under: 9. In the instant case, the owner has not only seen and examined the driving licence produced, by the driver but also took the test of the driving of the driver and found that the driver was competent to drive the vehicle and thereafter appointed him as driver of the vehicle in question. Thus, the owner having satisfied himself that the driver had a licence and was driving competently, there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and the Insurance Company would hot then be absolved of its liability. 10. Another decision rendered by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh can also be usefully referred to in the present context. This Court in para 110 of this judgment gave the summary of their findings to the various issues as raise din those petitions. We are concerned only with sub-para (iii) of para 110. The said sub-para (iii) reads thus: 110. (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 vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. 11. 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 vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. 11. As observed in the above paragraph, the insurer, namely, the Insurance company, has to prove that the insured, namely, the owner of the vehicle, was guilty of negligence and foiled to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant point of time. 7. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court quoted hereinabove, we do not find any error in the impugned judgment and award. This appeal, therefore, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed. D.K. Sinha, J. 8. I agree.