JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) This appeal is directed against the award and order, dated 21st December, 2005, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 49­S/2 of 2004, titled as Surekha versus Shri Ashok Kumar and others, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 2,12,632/­ with costs of ` 1,000/­ was granted in favour of the claimant, namely Surekha, respondent No. 1 herein, alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of award till its realization (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”). 2. The appellant­insurer was saddled with the liability, who, being aggrieved, has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle, namely Narinder Pal, respondent No. 3 herein, was not having effective and valid licence. Brief facts: 3. Surekha, claimant­respondent No. 1, became the victim of vehicular accident, which was caused by Narinder Pal, driver, while driving vehicle­truck bearing registration No. PB­10­AT­4321 rashly and negligently on 22nd October, 2001, at about 8.30 A.M. near Guru Motor Workshop on Kalka­Shimla National Highway No. 22. She sustained injuries, was taken to hospital and remained admitted in the hospital for a brief spell. The injuries sustained by her rendered her permanently disabled to the extent of 25%. The claimant­respondent No. 1 herein filed claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of ‘ 15,00,000/­ as per the break­ups given in the claim petition. 4. The insurer, insured­owner and driver contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the objections. After examining the pleadings and the documents, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the accident took place due to rash or negligent driving of Truck No. PB­10­AT­4321 by respondent No.2 as alleged? ... OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioner suffered injuries in the accident as alleged and is entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom?...OPP 3.Whether the petition is not maintainable as alleged?... OPR 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time?... OPR­3 5.Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as also route permit as alleged?...OPR­3. 6. OPR 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time?... OPR­3 5.Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as also route permit as alleged?...OPR­3. 6. Whether there were no valid documents in respect of the vehicle at the relevant time, if so, its effect? ... OPR­3. 7. Relief.” 5. The claimant­respondent No. 1 herein was asked to lead evidence and has examined Dr. J.P. Sharma, Smt. Nisha Kumari, Shri Lal Bahadur, Shri L.K. Sharma, Shri Ram Lal and has also appeared herself in the witness box. The claimant­respondent No. 1 herein has also placed on record copy of FIR, disability certificate, cash memos and receipts of the expenses incurred by her while she was under treatment. 6.The insured­owner, namely Ashok Kumar, has not examined any witness but has produced his own affidavit, copies of insurance cover note, registration certificate and driving licence. He has also appeared in the witness box and while making statement, has proved the said documents as Ext. RW­1/A, Ext. RW­1/B, RW­1/C and Ext. RW­1/D, respectively. 7.The insurer­appellant has examined the Assistant Administrative Officer and has proved the Insurance Policy. 8. The Tribunal, after examining the record, has recorded the finding to the effect that the claimant has proved that driver of the offending vehicle­truck has driven the truck rashly and negligently and hit the claimant, who sustained injuries and rendered her permanently disabled. Issues No. 1,2 and 3: 9. The parties have not questioned the findings recorded by the Tribunal on issues No. 1,2 and 3. Thus, the findings recorded qua issues No. 1, 2 and 3 are upheld and accordingly, all the three issues are decided in favour of the claimant­respondent No. 1 herein and against the owner­insured, driver and the insurer­appellant. Issues No.4 and 6: 10. Both these issues are interlinked and interdependent. The only dispute raised in this appeal is whether the driver of the offending vehicle, respondent No. 3 herein, was holding effective driving licence, rather whether he was duly licensed to drive the offending vehicle. 11. I have examined the trial Court record and have gone through the averments contained in the appeal. 12. The only dispute raised in this appeal is whether the driver of the offending vehicle, respondent No. 3 herein, was holding effective driving licence, rather whether he was duly licensed to drive the offending vehicle. 11. I have examined the trial Court record and have gone through the averments contained in the appeal. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has not appreciated the documents on the file and has wrongly made a conclusion that the offending vehicle falls within the definition of Light Motor Vehicle (‘LMV’), as described in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”). Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that the truck does not fall within the definition of’LMV’. 13. It is appropriate to reproduce Section 2 (21) of the MV Act herein:“2.(21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road­ roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms.” 14. While going through this provision of law, one comes to inescapable conclusion that a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) is a transport vehicle/omnibus gross vehicle, which includes a motor car or tractor or road roller, but the weight of the said vehicle should not exceed 7500 kilograms. Meaning thereby that the vehicle, which is falling under description of Light Motor Vehicle, its weight should not be more than 7500 kilograms. 15.The owner­respondent No. 2, Ashok Kumar, has produced and proved before the Tribunal all the documents, mention of which has been made hereinabove and they stood exhibited. While going through the said documents, specifically the registration certificate of the vehicle, Ext. RW­1/C, the gross weightage of the offending vehicle was not more than 5300 kilograms. The class of the vehicle is shown as ‘LMV’. Thus, the said vehicle is ‘LMV’ vehicle in terms of Section 2 (21) of the MV Act. 16. The Insurance Company, at the time of recording the insurance policy, has issued policy as per the registration certificate, Ext. RW­1/C. In the insurance policy, Ext. RW­1/B, it is recorded as ‘Model = 2001, Tata = 407’ and its weightage is also given as 5300 kilograms. Thus, the insurer­appellant, while executing the insurance agreement/contract with the insured­respondent No. 2­ Ashok Kumar, has admitted that the vehicle in question is a Light Motor Vehicle. RW­1/C. In the insurance policy, Ext. RW­1/B, it is recorded as ‘Model = 2001, Tata = 407’ and its weightage is also given as 5300 kilograms. Thus, the insurer­appellant, while executing the insurance agreement/contract with the insured­respondent No. 2­ Ashok Kumar, has admitted that the vehicle in question is a Light Motor Vehicle. 17.It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver was not having the effective licence, which he has failed to do so. It was also the duty of the insurer to prove that while driving the truck/ LMV, the accident was caused by the driver because of the fact that he was not competent to drive the said vehicle. 18. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531, has held that the insurer cannot avoid its liability unless the breach/breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed the cause of accident. It is apt to reproduce para 105 (vi) hereinbelow: “105. (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (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.” 19. The driving licence of the driver­Narinder Pal, Ext. RW­ 1 /D, is also on the file, which already stands proved. It discloses that the driver was competent to drive Light Motor Vehicle throughout India. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant that the vehicle in question is not Light Motor Vehicle. 20. Having said so, it cannot be said that the driver was not having effective driving licence. The appellant­Insurance Company has failed to discharge the onus. Thus, it does not lie in the mouth of the appellant that the vehicle in question is not Light Motor Vehicle. 20. Having said so, it cannot be said that the driver was not having effective driving licence. The appellant­Insurance Company has failed to discharge the onus. Accordingly, it is held that the Tribunal has rightly decided issues No. 4 and 6 against the appellant and in favour of the claimant­respondent No. 1 and the owner­ respondent No.2. Issue No.5: 21. The onus was on the insurer­appellant to prove that the owner has committed breach of insurance agreement/policy and that breach is a ground to the insurer to avoid its liability in terms of Section 149 of the MV Act. The insurer­appellant has not led any evidence to the effect that the owner­respondent No. 2 herein has committed any willful breach in order to absolve the insurer from its liability. 22.. The Apex Court in Swaran Singh’s case supra also held that the insurer has to plead and prove that the insured has committed a willful breach. In case, the insurer fails to do so, is to be saddled with the liability. It is apt to reproduce sub­paras (iii) and (iv) of para 105 hereinbelow: “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. (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.” 23. (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.” 23. It pains me to record herein that the Tribunal has awarded a meager compensation but unfortunately the claimant has not questioned the same and even has not prayed for its increase. Thus, the findings qua issue No. 5 are to be upheld and the same are reluctantly upheld. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi and others, reported in (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 464. The said judgment is not applicable in the given circumstances and facts of the case, for the reason that in the instant case, the registration certificate, driving licence and the insurance policy were issued for driving tractor/Swaraj Mazda/Tata 407, and is recorded as LMV in all the said papers. 25 . Having glance of the above discussion, the impugned award merits to be upheld and the appeal merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed.