JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) This appeal is directed against the award, dated 15th December, 2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No. 29 of 2002, titled as Amar Nath versus Seva Singh & others, whereby an award of ` 79,252/­ alongwith interest @ 7.5% and costs including lawyer’s fees assessed at ` 3,000/­ came to be granted in favour of the claimant, namely Shri Amar Nath, and against the owner­appellant, Shri Seva Singh, and driver of the offending vehicle from the date of filing of the petition till its finalization (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. Brief facts: 2.It is averred that on 9th November, 2001, at about 5.45 a.m., near College Chowk Bilaspur, the claimant­respondent No. 1, during his morning walk, became victim of traffic accident, which was caused by driver, namely Harnam Singh, while driving the truck bearing registration No. HP­24­4337 rashly and negligently, in which claimant­respondent No. 1 sustained multiple grievous injuries including pelvis fracture. He was taken to Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur, from where he was referred to IGMC, Shimla, where he remained admitted for four days. Thereafter, he also remained admitted at Zonal Hospital, Bilaspur, for about 14 days. 3. The respondents therein contested the claim petition. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the petitioner had suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 5 of vehicle No. HP ­3 7­4357/respondent No. 2 of vehicle No. HP ­24­433 7? ...OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom is the petitioner entitled to? ...OPP 3. Whether the respondents No. 2 and 5 had not been in possession of valid and effective licence at the time of the accident, if so, with what effect? ...OPR­3&64.Relief.” 4. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence held that the claimant­respondent No. 1 sustained injuries as a result of the accident caused by truck No. HP­24­4337, which was result of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver. Thus, the Tribunal, while allowing the petition, awarded a sum of ‘ 79,252/­alongwith interest @ 7.5% and costs including lawyer’s fees assessed at ‘ 3,000/­. 5. The insured/owner of the offending vehicle has questioned the impugned award. Thus, the Tribunal, while allowing the petition, awarded a sum of ‘ 79,252/­alongwith interest @ 7.5% and costs including lawyer’s fees assessed at ‘ 3,000/­. 5. The insured/owner of the offending vehicle has questioned the impugned award. Thus, it has attained finality so far it relates to other respondents. 6.Thus, the only question arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has rightly exonerated respondent No. 6, i.e. insurer­The New India Assurance Company Limited. The answer is in negative. 7. The undisputed facts of the case are that Harnam Singh, driver of the truck bearing registration No. HP­24­4337, had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on 9th November, 2001, at about 5.45 a.m., near College Chowk Bilaspur. The claimant, Amar Nath, being the victim of the vehicular accident, filed a claim petition and sought compensation as per break­ups in the claim petition. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that Harnam Singh had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently and had caused accident and also awarded a sum of ‘ 79,252/­ alongwith interest @ 7.5% and costs including lawyer’s fees assessed at ‘ 3,000/­, in favour of the claimant and saddled the owner with the liability. 8. The driver and insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any ground. Seva Singh­owner/insured has questioned the same on the ground that he has complied with the mandate of law and the driver was having a valid driving licence. The Tribunal has fallen in error in exonerating the Insurance Company. 9. I have gone through the file as well as the award passed by the Tribunal. It is admitted that Harnam Singh had produced the licence and which stands proved before the Tribunal. No doubt, the insurer has examined Manga Ram, RW­3, who has stated that the driving licence was issued in favour of some other person and not in favour of Harnam Singh, but in the same statement, has admitted that it was renewed and renewal is not in dispute. Even the learned counsel for respondent No. 6­Insurance Company has not disputed the said statement to that effect. 10. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the insurer was to be saddled with the liability in view of the latest Supreme Court judgment in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217. 11. Mr. 10. Mr. Mahajan, learned counsel for the appellant, argued that the insurer was to be saddled with the liability in view of the latest Supreme Court judgment in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217. 11. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the insurer, argued that it was for the insured to plead and prove that he has exercised due care and caution and has perused the driving licence, while employing the driver, which he has failed to do so. 12. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the insurer, though attractive, is devoid of any force for the simple reason that the defence which was available to the insurer are given in Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the MV Act), which had come up for consideration before the Three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531. The Apex Court has laid down the tests and points, which are to be gone through while making the award and while holding who is to be saddled with the liability. It is apt to reproduce sub­paras (iii) and (iv) of para 105 herein:“105. (i)(ii) (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub­section (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 wherefore would be on them.” 13. It provides that the insurer has not only to establish the defences available but also has to establish breach on the part of the owner. The insurer has failed to prove that owner/insured has committed any willful breach. Admittedly, the licence was renewed. Thus, it cannot be said that the owner has committed any willful breach. 14. Having said so, the impugned award needs to be modified by holding that the Tribunal has fallen in error in exonerating the insurer from its liability and is to be saddled with the liability. Thus, it is held that the Insurance Company is saddled with the liability and has to satisfy the award. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and the appeal is disposed of. Cross Objections No. 197 of 2006 15. I have gone through the cross­objections. The Tribunal has awarded the just and appropriate compensation. Thus, no ground is made out. Hence, dismissed.