1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Award dated 31st Janaury, 2009, hereinafter for short as impugned Award, passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srinagar, for short as Tribunal, in a claim petition titled Mst. Bakhta and ors. v. Showkat Ali Dar and others, for short as claim petition, instituted on 19th March, 2002, bearing File No. 37/Claim and decided on 31st January, 2009. 2. In order to deal with the appeal in hand, the history of the case needs to be underlined so that the impugned award is appreciated to be just or otherwise. BRIEF FACTS 3. Ghulam Rasool Baba, deceased while walking on the correct side of the road at Nail Bridge, was hit by a vehicle No. JKC-8795, (Bus), which was being driven by its driver, namely, Abdul Rashid Bhat, rashly and negligently. The victim sustained and succumbed to injuries in Soura Medical Institute. FIR No. 3/2001 was registered at Police Station Ganderbal for the offences punishable under Sections 279, 304-A of the Ranbir Penal Code, for short as RFC. The Claimants/Respondents 1-3 being the victims of vehicular accident invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal and sought compensation, as per the break-up given in the claim petition, for the loss suffered by them. To elaborate the contention further, it was projected by the claimants there that Ghulam Rasool Baba, while walking near Nail Bridge was hit by a vehicle bearing registration No. JKC 8795, sustained and succumbed to injuries in the Soura Medical Institute. The said vehicle was being driven by its driver Abdul Rashid Bhat-respondent No. 5 rashly and negligently. FIR in the matter was registered under Section 279, and 304-A of Ranbir Penal Code at Police Station Ganderbal. 4. The written statement was filed and claim petition was resisted by the appellant as also by the driver and owner and following issues came to be framed:- "1) Whether on 14.01.2001 Abdul Rashid Bhat respondent No. 2 was plying vehicle No. JKC/8795 rashly and negligently as a result of which near Wail Bridge it hit one Ghulam Rasool Baba who sustained fatal injuries and later on succumbed to the same? (OPP) 2) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license on the date of accident and as such the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability? (OPP) 2) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license on the date of accident and as such the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability? (OPP) 3) Whether the claim petition is not maintainable as the same has not been preferred in prescribed proforma and does not disclose any cause of action? (OPR) 4) In case issue No. 1 proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to, from whom and in what proportion? (OPP) 5) Relief." 5. In order to discharge the onus of issues framed by the Tribunal, claimants examined witnesses and claimant No. 2-respondent No. 2 also appeared in the witness box. Insurer-appellant examined Noor-ud-Din, License Clerk RTO Kashmir, as a witness and also driver namely Abdul Rashid Bhat. Owner and driver has chosen not to examine any witness. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and scanning the evidence, compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,27,000/- came to be awarded along with 6% interest from the date of institution till its final realization, in favour of the claimants against the driver, owner and insurance company-appellant and appellant being insurer was saddled with the liability. Further it was provided that in case the appellant fails to satisfy the award within timeframe i.e. within two months from the date of judgment/award, the awarded amount was recoverable, with 9% interest from the date of default. Owner and driver have not questioned the award nor have even the claimants questioned its adequacy. Only the appellant-insurer has thrown challenge to it. Issue No. 1 and 3 7. Learned counsel for the appellant while addressing the arguments has not contested the issue No. 1 and 3. However, I have gone through the evidence and the documents on the file, perusal whereof reveals that all the witnesses have said that driver namely Abdul Rashid Bhat has driven vehicle No. JKC 8795 (Bus) rashly and negligently on 141h January, 2011 at Nail Bridge, hit Gh. Rasool Baba, who was walking on the correct side of the road. The victim sustained and succumbed to the injuries in Soura Medical Institute. The evidence led by the claimants/respondents has remained unrebutted, thus it is held that claimants have proved issue No/1 and is accordingly decided in their favour and against driver, owner and insurer. 8. Rasool Baba, who was walking on the correct side of the road. The victim sustained and succumbed to the injuries in Soura Medical Institute. The evidence led by the claimants/respondents has remained unrebutted, thus it is held that claimants have proved issue No/1 and is accordingly decided in their favour and against driver, owner and insurer. 8. The granting of compensation has a social purpose and cannot be allowed to get defeated by the technicalities, might's, maybe's and such irregularities have no role to play. However, I have gone through the award again on this count, and am of the view that issue No. 3 rightly came to be decided in favour of claimants/respondents. It needs to be stated herein that the issue has not been pressed before the Tribunal by the appellant. Issue No. 2 9. The appellant has examined Noor-ud-din Licence Clerk who has deposed that licence bearing No. 51717K dated 3rd December, 1980 is recorded in the name of Bashir Ahmad Bhat-respondent No. 2, driver, who is shown to be competent to drive and ply vehicles mentioned in clause C to E, viz. LMV, MGV and HGV (Light Motor Vehicle, Medium Goods Vehicle and Heavy Goods Vehicle), and the same was valid on the date of accident. However, it is specifically stated that the licence was not bearing PSV endorsement. 10. It is not the case of the appellant that the driver was not competent to drive passenger vehicle, but plead that licence was not bearing the PSV endorsement. The evidence on the file makes it clear that licence was initially issued for LMV, MGV and HGV and after some time it can be made effective for driving passenger vehicles also. The licence clerk at RTO Kashmir's office has also given the difference between the two vehicles, goods vehicle and passenger vehicle. Driver of the vehicle was examined by the insurer who has stated that he was told by Regional Transport Officer, RTO that the driver was competent to drive passenger vehicles also. 9 Now the question is, as to whether the Tribunal has rightly decided issue No. 2? 10 In order to avoid liability, the insurer has to prove that owner has committed willful breach in terms of Section 149 of the Act. It was for the insurer to prove that owner-insured knew that driver was not having the licence to drive the passenger vehicle. 10 In order to avoid liability, the insurer has to prove that owner has committed willful breach in terms of Section 149 of the Act. It was for the insurer to prove that owner-insured knew that driver was not having the licence to drive the passenger vehicle. As per-record, the driver was having licence to drive vehicles viz. LMV, MGV and HGV. Insurer has not led any evidence to prove that owner knew about the driver being incompetent to drive passenger vehicle, thus has committed breach. Having failed to prove this, the insurer cannot escape liability. My view is fortified by a judgment reported as AIR 2004 SC 1531 titled National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others. It is apt to reproduce Para 105 of the said judgment herein:- "SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) Insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163 A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 inter alia in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (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 defences 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. 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 wheref or would be on them, (v) The court cannot lay clown any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance of each case. (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 allowed 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. (vii) The question as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver, (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. (viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. (ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to -the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims." 11. Applying the test, the insurer has failed to prove that owner has committed any breach. 12. Mr. Kawoosa has stated that it was for the driver to show that he was having valid licence as per the terms contained and he was admittedly not having the endorsement for driving passenger vehicle, thus owner has committed breach and insurer is not liable. In support of his argument, he has referred to AIR 2008 SC 2218 , AIR 2008 SC 2266 . 13. The judgments reported in 2008 AIR SC 2218 and AIR 2008 SC 2266 , are not applicable to the case in hand, in its given circumstances. Rather the case in hand is covered by the judgment of the apex court supra. However, to keep the record straight, it is stated that in the case, cited by Mr. Kawoosa, insurer had not proved that accident was caused because of the fact that driver was not having the endorsement of PSV. There is no proof on the file that the cause of accident was because of the fact that driver was not having the skill to drive the vehicle. There is however record which indicates that accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver and not because he was not having the endorsement on the licence to drive passenger vehicle. There is however record which indicates that accident was outcome of rash and negligent driving of the driver and not because he was not having the endorsement on the licence to drive passenger vehicle. Peerzada Noor-ud-din, the then RTO Kashmir has categorically stated that when a licence is issued for LMV, MGV and HGV, after one year the driver becomes entitled to drive passenger vehicle and is entitled to drive such type of vehicle. The documentary evidence on the file shows that licence was issued in the year 1990 and accident occurred in 2001, after lapse of 11 years. Thus the statement of Mr. Peerzada refutes the contention of learned counsel for appellant that driver was not having expertise to drive passenger vehicle. 14. In the given circumstances, finding returned by Tribunal while deciding issue No. 2 is upheld. 15. Issue No. 4 Neither appellant nor claimants have questioned the adequacy of compensation granted. However, I have gone through the file, perusal whereof reveals that claimants have led evidence and have proved that deceased was earning Rs. 10,000/- per month and Tribunal after deducting l/3rd for personal expenses, held that claimants have lost source of dependency to the tune of Rs. 6667/- per month and while keeping in view the age of the deceased and of the claimants applied multiplier 5 and awarded Rs. 6700 x 5 x 12 = 4,02,000/- under the head loss of dependency. However, Tribunal has fallen in error in awarding compensation under the head pain, shock and agony to the tune of Rs. 20.000/- which is impermissible. The claimants/respondents are held entitled to Rs. 5,000/- under the head Loss of Consortium, Rs. 2000/- under the head funeral expenses and Rs. 2500/- under the head Loss of Estate. Thus claimants in total are held entitled to Rs. 4,11,500/- with 6% interest from the date of institution till its final realization. 16. With such modification to the impugned award, the appeal is disposed of.