1. Appeals titled above are directed against the judgment and award dated 30th of August, 2006 passed by Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Leh Ladakh, whereby and whereunder eleven claim petitions filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act, for short the Act, by the victims of vehicular accident (claimants) came to be allowed and appellant-insurer came to be saddled with the liability. 2. It is necessary to notice the brief facts of the case herein; The victims of vehicular accident-claimants filed eleven claim petitions for grant of compensation in terms of Section 166 of the Act, on the ground that offending vehicle (Mini-bus) bearing No.JK10-1119 was being driven by its driver, Mehboob Ali, rashly and negligently on 28th of June, 2004 at Rangthan near Stakna Hydel Project and caused accident. The passengers traveling in the said offending vehicle sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The Tribunal clubbed all the claim petitions vide its order dated 29th of April, 2006 and proceedings were conducted in file No.9/2005 titled as Padma Dorjay v. National Insurance Company and another. Respondents filed reply/objections and following issues came to be framed: "1. Whether death of the deceased was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.1 1 19 JK-10 by the late driver? ...........OPP 2. If, issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what relief the petitioners are entitled to, and who is liable to pay the compensation? ...........OPP 3. Relief." 3. Claimants were directed to lead evidence in support of their respective claims. 4. Claimants examined witnesses, namely, Tundup Wangyal and Tsewang Dorjey and also statement of claimants came to be recorded. The insurer examined only one witness, its manager, namely, Rattan Lal. The Tribunal after considering the material decided the issues in favour of the claimants. 5. The main argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence. While developing his argument, he argued that driver was having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles but was not competent to drive Mini Bus-passenger vehicle and it was not bearing PSV endorsement. And further argued that the route permit was also not in force at the relevant point of time. While developing his argument, he argued that driver was having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles but was not competent to drive Mini Bus-passenger vehicle and it was not bearing PSV endorsement. And further argued that the route permit was also not in force at the relevant point of time. These issues came to be thrashed out by the tribunal and it held that the driver was having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicles including the Mini Bus. The licence was bearing PSV endorsement and the route permit was in force and valid. 6. I am also of the considered view that the tribunal has rightly returned the finding and it needs no interference for the following reasons. 7. Insurer-appellant has not led any evidence in order to prove that driver was not having valid and effective driving licence. The only witness examined by the insurer-appellant is Ratan Lal, its manager. He is not an expert to say that driver was not having valid licence. In order to prove this fact, the insurer had to examine the authority who has issued the driving licence. It has also failed to prove that the route permit was not in force. It is worthwhile to mention herein that the Photostat copies of the route permit on the trial court file indicate that the route permit was in force at the relevant point of time. 8. In terms of Section 147 read with Section 149 of the Act, it is duty of the insurer to plead and prove that owner has committed willful breach. In terms of mandate of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act., 1988, the insurer can only raise limited defence prescribed and enumerated in the section. It cannot avoid liability on any other ground. It has to plead, establish and prove defence available. It has also to prove that the breach committed by the owner -- insured was willful and was the cause of the accident. The apex court in case Punam Devi v. Divisional Manager, AIR 2004 1742 has held that if the insurer fails to discharge burden of proof, it has to be saddled with liability. It is profitable to reproduce para 2 of the said judgment hereunder: - "In National Insurance Co. The apex court in case Punam Devi v. Divisional Manager, AIR 2004 1742 has held that if the insurer fails to discharge burden of proof, it has to be saddled with liability. It is profitable to reproduce para 2 of the said judgment hereunder: - "In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Chandigarh v. Nicolletla Rohtagi and others, 2002 (7) SCC 456, it was held that the insurance company cannot challenge the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The only ground open to insurer is contained in Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, 2004(1) Scale 180, this Court has held that "mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defence available to the insurer against either the insured or the third party. To avoid its liability towards insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence or failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time". In the present case, the insurer has not led any evidence that the driver of the vehicle had no licence. The burden of proof that the driver had no licence was open to the insurer which it failed to discharge." 9. Applying the test laid down by the apex court to the instant case, the appellant -- insurer has failed to discharge the onus as discussed hereinabove. 10. The apex court also in a leading case titled National Insurance Co. v. Swaran Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1531 held that if driver is competent to drive one type of vehicle and was driving another type of vehicle at the time of accident, the insurer has to prove by leading evidence before the court that, it was the main or contributory cause of accident. It is profitable to reproduce a portion of para 84 of the said judgment, so far it is relevant for the present, hereunder:- "..... 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. 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." 11. In Swaran Singhs case (supra), the apex court has laid down test when and how insurer can avoid liability. It is profitable to reproduce para 105 (iii)(iv) and (vi) herein:- "(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, have 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 defenses available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards 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 duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish `breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be avowed to avoid its liability towards insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149(2) of the Act." 12. As discussed above, there is nothing on the file to show that the insurer has pleaded and proved before the Tribunal that the insured was guilty of negligence and has committed any willful breach. Applying the test laid down by the apex court in the judgment supra, the appellant cannot avoid its liability. 13. It is worthwhile to mention herein that the witness of the insurer, namely, Rattan Lal has produced before the tribunal Photostat copy of licence which disclose that driver was competent to drive Light Motor Vehicles including the Mini-bus and it bears the PSV endorsement also. 14. Division Bench of this Court has also held, in case titled National Insurance Company Limited v. Mohammad Sidiq Kuchay and others (LPA No. 180/2002) that insurer has to be saddled with the liability in the given circumstances. 15. Keeping in view the discussion, the grounds raised and projected by the learned counsel for the appellant fail. 16. The claimants have proved by leading cogent evidence before the tribunal that the driver has driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently. 17. It is beaten law of the land that the insurer-appellant cannot challenge the quantum of compensation. However, I have gone through all the files and the impugned award, I am of the considered view that just compensation came to be awarded in all the claim petitions while applying just and appropriate multiplier. The income also came to be assessed rightly. 18. Having glance of the above discussion, all the appeals merit to be dismissed and impugned judgment and award merits to be upheld. 19. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed and impugned award is upheld. Send down the record.