JUDGMENT Surinder Singh, J. 1. The Insurance Company has laid a challenge to the award passed in M.A.C. C. No. 28-S/2 of 2007 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla on 29.06.2010, precisely on the ground that when the driving licence of respondent No. 3 Narinder Kumar has been held to be fake, in that event, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. Shri Lalit K. Sharma, the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company vehemently argued that the origin of the driving licence is proved to be fake. Its renewal will not presume the validity, as such, there is a breach of terms and conditions of the policy. To substantiate his arguments, he put his reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Swaran Singh and others, 2004 ACJ 1. 2. The summary of the findings given in para-102 of the judgment do include the breach of policy conditions, for example, disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2) (a) (ii) of Section 149, which have to be proved having been committed by the insurer. It also held that 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 conditions of the policy regarding use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. Further, to establish the available defences raised in the pleadings, the Insurance-Company is also bound to establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle, the burden of proof wherefor would be on them which, of course, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Further, 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 fulfill the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. 3. Further, 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 fulfill the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. 3. In the instant case, the learned Tribunal framed Issue No. (vi) : whether the vehicle in question was being driven in contravention of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and Issue No. (vii) was with respect to the validity of the licence. Onus of both these issues was placed on the Insurance-Company. 4. After considering the evidence, the learned Tribunal held that there was no contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, but however held that the licence in question was fake in view of the statement of CW-1 Rajinder Singh, Regional Inspector of RTO Office, Meerut (UP) from where initially the licence in question was alleged to be issued in favour of respondent No. 3 Narinder Kumar, thus saddled the Insurance-Company with liability. 5. Significantly, in the instant case, the owner of the vehicle was respondent No. 2 Indu Bali and her husband respondent No. 3 Narinder Kumar was the driver of the truck in question. Admittedly, the vehicle in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company and the Insurance Policy is Ext. RW-1/E. Copy of the driving licence Ext. RW-1/D has been tendered in evidence by RW-1 Narinder Kumar, driver in his evidence which prima-facie was valid and effective at the time of the alleged accident which had taken place on 10.08.2005. Respondent No. 2 Indu Bali examined herself as RW-3 (wrongly mentioned as RW-2) and testified that the copy of the driving licence Ext. RW-1/E pertains to respondent No. 3 Narinder Kumar, who was kept driver of the said truck by her because he was having a driving licence to drive the truck in question and prior to that he was also working as driver with other persons at Una and Meerut. She also stated that he had shown her the original driving licence, photocopy of which is Ext. RW-1/D and she believed that her husband (driver) was having a valid driving licence, therefore, he was allowed and kept to drive the truck in question. She further stated that this licence was renewed many times from the office of Registering and Licencing Authority (RLA), Una. RW-1/D and she believed that her husband (driver) was having a valid driving licence, therefore, he was allowed and kept to drive the truck in question. She further stated that this licence was renewed many times from the office of Registering and Licencing Authority (RLA), Una. In the cross-examination conducted by the Insurance Company, she further stuck to the statement made in the examination-in-chief and denied that she had not made proper verification qua the licence in question. 6. The perusal of the copy of the driving licence Ext. RW-1/D reveals the original number and date which was of the year 1986, but the name of the original issuing authority has not been mentioned therein, whereas RW-1 Narinder Kumar admitted having issued it from the RLA Meerut. The licence thereafter was being renewed repeatedly by the RLA, Una and lastly, it was renewed on 21.8.2001 which was valid upto 19.06.2007, whereas the accident in question had taken place in the year 2005 during its validity. The owner of the vehicle, as deposed by her, had only seen this licence at the time of keeping respondent Narinder Kumar as driver. Thus, there was no material to disbelieve it and absolutely no chance to detect any sort of forgery being committed by the driver, even it did surface at the time of its renewal before the RLA, Una. Therefore, when it could not be detected by the statutory authority, then how could it be possible for the respondent, owner of the truck Smt. Indu Bali to know about its fake origin. 7. Thus, in the aforesaid circumstances, the mere fact of fake licence is not enough to absolve the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company. For that, the Insurance- Company was required to prove that the owner was guilty of the breach of the conditions of the Insurance Policy and lead the evidence that the owner of the vehicle/insured had reasons to know that the licence was fake and forged. For the above reasons, the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award with interest as its liability is joint and several. Accordingly, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal requires no interference. As such, the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is dismissed.