ORDER : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. These appeals were heard analogously and disposed of by this common order as the common question of fact and law are involved therein. For the sake of convenience, Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No. 120/2008 is taken-up as the lead case. The facts in nutshell, necessary for adjudication of the appeals, are as under: (2.1.) Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No. 120/2008 is the appeal by United India Insurance Company Limited u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act' 1988') challenging the award dated 10-8-2007 passed by 7th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (henceforth 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 23/2007. (2.2.) On 9-5-2005, respondent/driver Amarjeet Das, while driving the offending Truck No. CG 04 ZC 2274 rashly and negligently, owned by respondent M/s. Paras Oil Extraction Limited and insured with the appellant/insurance company, caused the death of Hamid Ali (driver of the bus) and also caused injuries to the claimants/respondents of the connected appeals, namely, Smt. Annas Bose, Ku. Shikha Singh, Smt. Ashwini Singh and Smt. Geeta Singh. Claims for compensation were made alleging the rash and negligent act. (2.3.) The owner and driver of the offending truck filed their written statement opposing the claims. Whereas, the insurance company filed its separate written statement and raised a plea that the driver of the offending truck did not have a valid and effective licence to drive the offending truck and pleaded exoneration from its liability. (2.4.) During the course of trial, the claimants of deceased Hamid Ali examined Smt. Malka Begum as AW-1 and Mini-Bus Conductor Iliyas Mohammed as AW-2. The driver and owner of the offending truck examined Conductor Mohammed Javed as NAW-1 and Driver Amarjeet Das as NAW-2. The insurance company examined Licence Clerk Rajesh Kumar Bhargava as NAW-1 and Assistant of the insurance company Suresh Kumar Nandeshwar as NAW-2. (2.5.) Driver of the offending truck Amarjeet Das deposed that he had a licence to drive heavy goods vehicles. Licence Clerk Rajesh Kumar Bhargava deposed that driver Amarjeet Das was issued licence as per Ex. NA-1 to drive light motor vehicles on 18-6-1998, whereas endorsement to drive heavy goods vehicle has been made on 15-7-2005, i.e., after 66 days from the date of accident. (2.6.) The Claims Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, recorded the following findings that: 1. NA-1 to drive light motor vehicles on 18-6-1998, whereas endorsement to drive heavy goods vehicle has been made on 15-7-2005, i.e., after 66 days from the date of accident. (2.6.) The Claims Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, recorded the following findings that: 1. The death of Hamid Ali and injuries to Smt. Annas Bose, Ku. Shikha Singh, Smt. Ashwini Singh and Smt. Geeta Singh were caused due to rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by Amarjeet Das, and 2. The insurance company failed to prove the plea that the driver of the offending truck did not have a valid and effective licence to drive the truck. 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company would submit that the Claims Tribunal has committed legal error in fastening liability upon the insurance company. He would further submit that the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the insurance company is liable to make payment of the compensation is perverse and contrary to the record as the offending truck was a "heavy goods vehicle" within the meaning of Section 2(16) the Act, 1988 and respondent/driver Amarjeet Das was licensed to drive a heavy goods vehicle with effect from 15-7-2005 only that is after 66 days from the date of accident which is clear cut violation of the terms of the policy of insurance. 3. On the other hand, Shri B.P. Sharma, Shri Raja Ali and Shri Sameer Uraon, learned counsel appearing for respondents/driver and owner and Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri Aditya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents/claimants would submit that the finding of the Claims Tribunal that the driver of the offending truck did have a valid and effective licence to drive the truck is based on the evidence available on record. They would further submit that there is no specific plea by the appellant/insurance company that the driver of the offending truck had a licence to drive light motor vehicle only. They would further submit that there is an endorsement in the licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle. 4. I have heard and considered the rival submissions and have perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 5. Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, 1988 gives a right to the insurer to take a defence that the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not duly licensed. 4. I have heard and considered the rival submissions and have perused the records of the Claims Tribunal. 5. Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, 1988 gives a right to the insurer to take a defence that the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not duly licensed. Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, 1988 runs thus: 149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.- xxxx xxxx xxxx (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely:-- (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, xxxx xxxx xxxx (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or Thus, Section 149 (2) (a) (iii) of Act, 1988 puts a condition excluding driving by any person who is not duly licensed. 6. Reverting back to the facts of the case, I find that the certificate of policy of insurance of the offending truck has been filed as Ex. D-2 which reveals that registration number or the truck is CG-04 ZG 2274 and make thereof is Tata Truck. The portion marked as A to A in Ex. D-2 describes about the person authorised to drive the truck as under: Persons or classes of Persons entitled to drive: Any person including Insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a Licence. The portion marked as A to A in Ex. D-2 describes about the person authorised to drive the truck as under: Persons or classes of Persons entitled to drive: Any person including Insured provided that a person driving holds an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a Licence. Provided also that the person holding an effective Learner's Licence may also drive the vehicle and such a person satisfies the requirements of Rule 3 of Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 7. A bare perusal of the said clause would show that in order to drive the offending vehicle, a person must hold an effective driving licence at the time of the accident and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence. 8. Now, the question that falls for consideration is whether the appellant/insurance company has pleaded and proved that respondent/driver Amarjeet Das did not have an effective licence at the time of accident and was disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence, as the burden is squarely upon the shoulders of the appellant/insurance company not only to plead the said fact but also to prove the same to the satisfaction of the Claims Tribunal by adducing appropriate legal evidence. In order to examine the said question, it would be appropriate firstly to refer to the pleadings and the documents filed by the appellant/insurance company to establish the said fact. In the written statement filed before the Claims Tribunal, the appellant/insurance company simply took a plea in paragraph 8-A that driver of the offending truck bearing registration No. CG-04 ZC 2274 which was insured with the appellant/insurance company and the driver of the bus bearing registration No. CG-04 E 0446 did not have valid and effective licence to drive the said vehicles. The appellant/insurance company did not specifically take a plea whether the driver of the offending truck was not holding a particular type of licence to drive the offending truck or whether the period of the licence held by the driver of the offending truck was expired and therefore, his licence was ineffective. The appellant/insurance company did not specifically take a plea whether the driver of the offending truck was not holding a particular type of licence to drive the offending truck or whether the period of the licence held by the driver of the offending truck was expired and therefore, his licence was ineffective. Apart from this, the appellant/insurance company has also not pleaded that the offending truck was a "heavy goods vehicle" within the meaning of Section 2(16) of the Act, 1988 stating that offending vehicle is a goods carriage and its gross-vehicle weight/un-laden weight is more than 12,000 kilograms. 9. The appellant/insurance company went on trial with the aforesaid pleading. The appellant/insurance company did not file any document in support of its aforesaid pleading raised in the written statement and ultimately on 30-7-2007 when its two witnesses from the office of Regional Transport Officer, namely, Rajesh Kumar Bhargava and Suresh Kumar Nandeshwar appeared before the Claims Tribunal, then on same day; the particulars of the licence issued to respondent/driver Amarjeet Das were exhibited as Ex. D-1C and the certificate of policy of insurance was exhibited as Ex. D-2. Rajesh Kumar Bhargava (NAW-1) simply deposed before the Claims Tribunal that the respondent/driver Amarjeet Das was issued a licence to drive light motor vehicle on 18-6-1998 and an endorsement to drive a heavy goods vehicle was made therein on 15-7-2005. In paragraph 2 of his deposition, he accepted the claimants' suggestion that he was not aware if any driving licence was issued to driver Amarjeet Das from transport department of any other district. Other witness of the insurance company, namely, Suresh Kumar Nandeshwar (NAW-2) has simply deposed and proved the certificate of policy of insurance (Ex. D-2) with its clause by which a person having valid and effective driving licence can drive the offending truck, has been shown by the appellant/insurance company. Thus, the fact remains that there is no evidence led by appellant/insurance company to the effect that the offending truck was a mini truck or a big truck is a "heavy goods vehicle" having unladen weight exceeding 12000 kilograms and it is "heavy goods vehicle" as defined in the Act. In order to prove that respondent/driver Amarjeet Das did not have a valid and effective licence to drive the offending truck on the date of accident, as provided in the policy of insurance (Ex. In order to prove that respondent/driver Amarjeet Das did not have a valid and effective licence to drive the offending truck on the date of accident, as provided in the policy of insurance (Ex. D-2), the appellant/insurance company must firstly prove that the offending truck was a heavy goods vehicle and secondly that driver Amarjeet Das did not have a licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle and on the date of accident. In the instant case, firstly the appellant/insurance company did not take such specific plea that the offending truck was a heavy goods vehicle as defined u/s 2 (16) of the Act, 1988 and did not file any document to that effect and on 30-7-2007 Rajesh Kumar Bhargava (NAW-1) and Suresh Kumar Nandeshwar (NAW-2) were examined on behalf of the appellant/insurance company and Ex. D-1C and D-2 were produced and exhibited on that very date at belated stage. Though the appellant/insurance company examined the aforesaid two witnesses and led evidence that driver Amarjeet Das was licensed to drive a heavy goods vehicle with effect form 15-7-2005, the fact remains that there is no iota of pleading supported by any legal evidence on record to hold that the offending truck was a heavy goods vehicle within the meaning of Section 2(16) of the Act, 1988. The witnesses of the appellant/insurance company also did not depose whether the offending truck was a heavy goods vehicle or not. Thus, the Insurance Company has failed to plead and establish, that the offending vehicle was "heavy goods vehicle" within the meaning of Section 2(16) of Act of 1988. 10. Since the Insurance Company has failed to plead and prove, that offending vehicle was "Heavy Motor Vehicle", therefore the question as to whether driver was holding license to drive heavy goods vehicle is unnecessary, but it is to be noted that Insurance Company has even failed to prove beyond doubt that respondent's driver didn't have a license to drive the Heavy Motor Vehicle, which is apparent from the perusal of the evidence of witness Rajesh Kumar Bhargava (NAW-1), who stated as under: 11. In Narcinva V. Kamat and Another Vs. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and Others, (1985) 2 SCC 574 , the Supreme Court held thus: 14.........The burden to prove that there was breach of the contract of insurance was squarely placed on the shoulders of the insurance company. In Narcinva V. Kamat and Another Vs. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and Others, (1985) 2 SCC 574 , the Supreme Court held thus: 14.........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 but 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 lead, 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. 12. Thus, applying the ratio laid down in aforestated decision which is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case; it cannot be said that claims tribunal has committed on illegality in holding that Insurance Company has failed to prove breach of condition of policy. 13. In order to avoid liability the Insurance Company was not only required to prove that the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not only licensed, it must also establish willful breach of conditions of the policy of insurance on the part of the insured. 14. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Lehru and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 338 , the Supreme Court has taken a view as under: 18. Now let us consider Section 149(2). Reliance has been placed on Section 149(2) (a) (ii). As seen, in order to avoid liability under this provision it must be shown that there is a "breach". As held in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Lehru and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 338 , the Supreme Court has taken a view as under: 18. Now let us consider Section 149(2). Reliance has been placed on Section 149(2) (a) (ii). As seen, in order to avoid liability under this provision it must be shown that there is a "breach". As held in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 654 , and Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. Sesh Reddy and others, (1996) 5 SCC 21 , the breach must be on the part of the insured. We are in full agreement with that. To hold otherwise would lead to absurd results. Just to take an example, suppose a vehicle is stolen. Whilst it is being driven by the thief there is an accident. The thief is caught and it is ascertained that he had no licence. Can the insurance company disown liability? The answer has to be an emphatic "No". To hold otherwise would be to negate the very purpose of compulsory insurance. The injured or relatives of the person killed in the accident may find that the decree obtained by them is only a paper decree as the owner is a man of straw. The owner himself would be an innocent sufferer. It is for this reason that the legislature, in its wisdom, has made insurance, at least third-party insurance, compulsory. The aim and purpose being that an insurance company would be available to pay. The business of the company is insurance. In all businesses there is an element of risk. All persons carrying on business must take risks associated with that business. Thus it is equitable that the business which is run for making profits also bears the risk associated with it. At the same time innocent parties must not be made to suffer or loss. These provisions meet these requirements. We are thus in agreement with what is laid down in the aforementioned cases viz. That in order to avoid liability it is not sufficient to show that the person driving at the time of accident was not duly licensed. The insurance company must establish that the breach was on the part of the insured. 20. When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. The insurance company must establish that the breach was on the part of the insured. 20. When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange that insurance companies expect owners to make enquiries with RTOs, which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently there would be no breach of Section 149 (2), (a) (ii). The insurance company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake, the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly, even in such a case the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. This is the law which has been laid down in Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kokilaben Chandravadan and Others, (1987) 2 SCC 654 ,Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. Sesh Reddy and others, (1996) 5 SCC 21 ,New India Assurance Co., Shimla Vs. Kamla and Others etc. etc., (2001) 4 SCC 342 . We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and see no reason to take a different view. 15. The Supreme Court again National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , held that in case the insured did not take reasonable and adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the licence, the insurance company would be liable to make payment of the compensation. The relevant discussions are as under: 92. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , held that in case the insured did not take reasonable and adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the licence, the insurance company would be liable to make payment of the compensation. The relevant discussions are as under: 92. It may be true as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that a fake or forged licence is as good as no licence but the question herein, as noticed hereinbefore, is whether the insurer must prove that the owner was guilty of the willful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance. In United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Lehru and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 338 , the matter has been considered in some detail. We are in general agreement with the approach of the Bench but we intended to point out that the observations made therein must be understood to have been made in the tight of the requirements of the law in terms whereof the insurer is to establish willful breach on the part of the insured and not for the purpose of its disentitlement from raising nay defence or for the owners to be absolved from any liability whatsoever, 99. So far as the purported conflict in the judgments of New India Assurance Co., Shimla Vs. Kamla and Others etc., (2001) 4 SCC 342 , and Lehru's case is concerned, we may wish to point out that the defence to the effect that the licence held by the person driving the vehicle was a fake one, would be available to the insurance companies, but whether despite the same, the plea of default on the part of the owner has been established or not would be a question which will have to be determined in each case. 100. This Court, however, in Lehru must not be read to mean that an owner of a vehicle can under no circumstances have any duty to make any enquiry in this respect. The same, however, would again be a question which would arise for consideration in each individual case. 101. The submission of Mr. Salve that in lehru case, this Court has, for all intent and purport, taken away the right of insurer to raise a defence that the licence is fake does not appear to be correct. The same, however, would again be a question which would arise for consideration in each individual case. 101. The submission of Mr. Salve that in lehru case, this Court has, for all intent and purport, taken away the right of insurer to raise a defence that the licence is fake does not appear to be correct. Such defence can certainly be raised but it will be for the insurer to prove that the insured did not take adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the licence held by the driver. 16. In a recent decision in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation Vs. National Insurance Company, (2013) 10 SCC 217 , the Supreme Court again considered the question with regard to defence of the insurance company u/s 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, 1988 and held that once a defence is taken by the insurer it is onus on the insurer to prove the same. 8. In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer u/s 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence duly verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh's case (supra). If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the insurance company is not liable for the compensation. 17. In S. Iyyapan Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, (2013) 7 SCC 62 , it is held thus: 17. The heading 'Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks' given in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Chapter VIII of 1939 Act) itself shows the intention of the legislature to make third party insurance compulsory and to ensure that the victims of accident arising out of use of motor vehicles would be able to get compensation for the death or injuries suffered. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the persons traveling in vehicles or using the road from the risk attendant upon the user of the motor vehicles on the road. To overcome this ugly situation, the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third party insurance is in force. 18. Reading the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is evident that in certain circumstances the insurer's right is safeguarded but in any event the insurer has to pay compensation when a valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. 18. Reading the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is evident that in certain circumstances the insurer's right is safeguarded but in any event the insurer has to pay compensation when a valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. u/s 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer can defend the action, inter alia, on the grounds, namely, (i) the vehicle was not driven by a named-person, (ii) it was being driven by a person who was not having a duly granted licence, and (iii) person driving the vehicle was disqualified to hold and obtain a driving licence.............. 18. Thus, applying the ratio laid down in the above cases, I arrive at a finding that in the instant case, the insurance company not only failed to prove that respondent/driver Amarjeet Das did not have a valid and effective licence to drive the offending truck on the date of accident but also failed to establish willful breach of the conditions of the policy of insurance on the part of the insured and the respondents/claimants, being the third party, the finding of the Claims Tribunal fastening liability upon the insurance company to make payment of the amount awarded as compensation cannot be faulted with. I hereby affirm the finding so arrived at. 19. Consequently, all the five appeals preferred by the insurance company fail and are hereby dismissed. 20. In the above five appeals, cross-objections have been filed by the driver and the owner of the offending truck as also by the claimants. 21. The driver and the owner of the offending truck have filed joint cross-objections that the driver and the owner of the bus were also contributory negligent and thereby they have prayed for dismissal of the claim petition against them. 22. It has been held that the appellant/insurance company is solely liable to make payment of the compensation. Thus, I do not find any ground to grant the cross-objections filed by the respondents/driver and owner of the offending truck and accordingly, their cross-objections are hereby rejected. The claimants have also preferred cross-objections seeking enhancement of the amounts awarded under the impugned awards. I have gone through their " cross-objections and have perused the evidence available on record. Thus, I do not find any ground to grant the cross-objections filed by the respondents/driver and owner of the offending truck and accordingly, their cross-objections are hereby rejected. The claimants have also preferred cross-objections seeking enhancement of the amounts awarded under the impugned awards. I have gone through their " cross-objections and have perused the evidence available on record. I am of the considered opinion that the amounts of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal to the claimants under various heads are just and proper and do not warrant any interference by this Court and accordingly, their cross-objections are also hereby rejected.