JUDGMENT 1. United India Insurance Co. Ltd./appellant herein has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the M.V. Act') questioning the award dated 19/02/2001 passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur (Koriya), Link Court Surajpur (Surguja) Chhattisgarh (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 38/2001, by which, the learned Claims Tribunal has partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded total sum of' 1,42,600 along with 12% interest. The facts : 2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are as under: 2.1 Claimants being the legal representatives of deceased-Chhatru filed claim petition No. 38/2001 before the learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation stating inter alia that on the date of accident i.e. 29/01/1999, the Tractor bearing registration No.MP-27/B/4525 & Trolley bearing registration No. MP-27/B/4526 (offending vehicle) was driven by respondent No.1 therein-Ramjit, owned by respondents No.3 to 7 therein and insured with appellant/Insurance Company, rashly and negligently, caused the death of Chhatru. Claimants were claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.6,10,000 to the respondents therein jointly and severally. 2.2 Appellant/Insurance Company filed written statement before the learned Claims Tribunal and raised a plea that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle on the date of accident. It was further pleaded that the deceased Chhatru was sitting in the offending vehicle as a passenger and the offending vehicle was not authorized to carry passengers, it was insured only for agricultural purpose, therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to make payment of compensation to the claimants. 2.3 Learned Claims Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence has recorded the following findings: The Claims Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.1,42,600 to the claimants along with 12% interest. Deceased-Chhatru suffered grievous injury and thereafter died on account of rash and negligent act of respondent No.1 therein/driver of the offending vehicle. On the date of accident, driver of the offending vehicle did have possess a learner's licence to drive the offending vehicle and there is no breach of policy condition by plying the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellants Insurance Company, therefore, Insurance Company is liable to make payment of compensation to the claimants. Submission of counsel : 3. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned senior counsel with Mr. The offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellants Insurance Company, therefore, Insurance Company is liable to make payment of compensation to the claimants. Submission of counsel : 3. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned senior counsel with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the driver of the offending vehicle-Ramjit did have possess only learner's licence, which is not a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of the terms of the insurance policy by using the same for non-agricultural purpose. He would further submit that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as seating capacity of the tractor is only one as Chhatru was gratuitous passenger, therefore, Insurance Company be exonerated from liability to make payment of compensation to the claimants. 4. Per contra, Mr. B.P. Banjare, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is strictly in accordance with law and no interference is called for in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Section 173 of the M.V. Act. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the rival submissions and have perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. Points for determination : 6. On the basis of factual and legal submissions raised on behalf of parties, two points would arise for determination of this appeal : (i) Whether the appellant/Insurance Company can avoid liability on the ground that driver of the offending vehicle did have possess only learner's licence? (ii) Whether the appellant/Insurance company has proved that the vehicle was being plied in breach of insurance policy and what relief the appellant/Insurance Company is entitled? Answer to question No.1 7. The Claims Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the driver did have possess learner's licence to drive the offending vehicle. 8. The question as to whether the Insurance Company can avoid liability to indemnify the award on the ground that the vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence came to be considered by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others (2004) 3 SCC 297 . 8. The question as to whether the Insurance Company can avoid liability to indemnify the award on the ground that the vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence came to be considered by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others (2004) 3 SCC 297 . It has been held as under: 110 : "(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." 9. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd.(supra), the appellant/Insurance Company cannot escape its liability merely on the ground that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was driven by a person having learner's licence. Thus, the finding of the Claims Tribunal that appellant/Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award is a finding based on fact and law available on record and I hereby affirm the finding so recorded by the Claims Tribunal. Thus, this question is answered accordingly in favour of the claimants. Answer to question No.2 10. The appellant/Insurance Company has raised a plea in the written statement that the vehicle in question was being used at the time of accident for non-agricultural purpose and the deceased was sitting in the tractor as gratuitous passenger, as such, he was not authorized to sit in the Tractor. 11. During the course of trial, appellant/Insurance Company has examined B.S. Dillo as NAW-l(2), Branch Manager of the Insurance Company, who has stated that Tractor was insured for carrying only one person and Trolley was insured for carrying only four persons. He has further stated that if terms and conditions of the insurance policy is violated, then, Insurance Company is not liable for any payment. This witness of the appellant/Insurance Company has not stated as to whether any condition of the contract of Insurance has been violated and further has not uttered any word that who are person sitting in the Tractor. Apart from this, Insurance Company has not examined any independent witness to prove the breach of terms of policy condition is support of his case. 12. In case of Narcinva v. Kamat and Another Vs. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and other, (1985) 2 SCC 574 , the Supreme Court has held thus : "14. Apart from this, Insurance Company has not examined any independent witness to prove the breach of terms of policy condition is support of his case. 12. In case of Narcinva v. Kamat and Another Vs. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and other, (1985) 2 SCC 574 , the Supreme Court has held thus : "14. The last question is whether he had a valid driving licence. The High Court has not recorded a clear cut finding on this point. The finding of the Tribunal is more evasive than the one by the High Court. Mr. Sharma did not dispute that the second appellant had a driving licence. His grievance is that he having failed to produce the same when called upon to do so in the cross-examination, an adverse inference be drawn against him that he did not have a valid licence to drive a pick-up van. The submission fails to carry conviction with us. The burden to prove that there was breach of the contract of insurance was squarely placed on the shoulders of the insurance company. It could not be said to have been discharged by it by a mere question in cross-examination. The second appellant was under no obligation to furnish evidence so as to enable the insurance company to wriggle out its liability under the contract of insurance. Further the R.T.A. Which issues the driving licence keeps a record of the licences issued and renewed by it. The insurance company could have got the evidence produced to substantiate its allegation. Applying the test who would fail if no evidence is led, the obvious answer is the insurance company. 15. To sum up the insurance company failed to prove that there was a breach of the term of the contract of insurance as evidenced by the policy of insurance on the ground that the driver who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time did not have a valid driving licence. Once the insurance company failed to prove that aspect, its liability under the contract of insurance remains intact and unhampered and it was bound to satisfy the award under the comprehensive policy of insurance. 13. Once the insurance company failed to prove that aspect, its liability under the contract of insurance remains intact and unhampered and it was bound to satisfy the award under the comprehensive policy of insurance. 13. Thus, the appellant/Insurance Company has failed to establish the fact of breach of terms of policy conditions and the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is based on reliable, satisfactory and clinching evidence and I hereby affirm the finding so recorded by the Claims Tribunal. Thus, this question is answered accordingly in favour of the claimants. Conclusion 14. As such, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The award as well as interest awarded by the learned claims Tribunal is justified. No order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.