JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. The appellant has assailed the judgment and award dated 28.12.2005, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, -II Hamirpur in MAC Petition No. 65 of 2003/22 of 2005, titled Ram Lal versus National Insurance Company Ltd. and others, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant came be granted and compensation to the tune of Rs.5,15,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and against the driver and owner with command to the appellant-insurer to satisfy the award, hereinafter referred to as ?the impugned award?, for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. BRIEF FACTS. 2. Ram Lal-respondent No. 1 herein invoked the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.12 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. It is averred that on 22.7.2003, he was sitting in a rain shelter on the side of the road at Kuthera on Hamirpur Sujanpur road. At about 1 p.m. respondent No.3 Sanjeev Kumar came from Sujanpur side driving Truck bearing registration No. HP-11-0717, owned by respondent No. 2 Ramesh Kumar, in a rash and negligent manner and struck his truck against the rain shelter as a result of which it had fallen down. The claimant had sustained multiple injuries because of this accident and his six teeth were broken. He had also suffered two fractures in his left leg which was broken from thigh as well as near the ankle and subsequently his foot was amputated. He has become permanent disabled and he was not in a position to walk and is always dependent on others and that he has a large family to support. 3. The respondents contested and resisted the claim petition. 4. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal. (i) Whether the petitioner received injuries on his person while sitting in a rain shelter when a truck bearing no.HP-11-0717 on 22.7.2003 struck against the rain shelter due to rash and negligent driving by respondent No.3 at village Kuthera? OPP. (ii) If issue no. 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP (iii) Whether respondent no.3, the driver of the truck involved in the accident was not holding effective and valid driving licence, if so, to what effect?OPR-1. OPP. (ii) If issue no. 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? OPP (iii) Whether respondent no.3, the driver of the truck involved in the accident was not holding effective and valid driving licence, if so, to what effect?OPR-1. (iv) Relief. 5. The claimant has examined seven witnesses in support of his case and placed on record documents, i.e., copy of FIR, Ext. PW1/A, M.L.C. of claimant Ext. PW2/A, medical certificate, Ext. PW3/A, travel receipts and medical receipts Mark-A-1 to A-49 and OPD slip Ext. PW7/A. 6. The insurer/appellant has not examined any witness. Only driver stepped into the witness-box and produced the documents, i.e., driving licence of Sanjeev Kumar, Ext. RW1/A, registration certificate, copy of insurance, copy of national permit and list of reliance Ext. R-1 to R-4 respectively. 7. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence on the record, held the insurer liable to pay the compensation. The driver, owner and claimant have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 8. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds that the driver was not competent to drive heavy goods motor vehicle thus was not having a valid and effective driving licence and the amount awarded is excessive. 9. I have perused the record. The driving licence is on the file, exhibited as Ext.RW1/A which do disclose that the driver was competent to drive ?light motor vehicle? and also ?heavy transport vehicle?. Thus, the driver was competent to drive the said vehicle and it cannot lie in the mouth of the insurer-appellant that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence. Even otherwise, the insurer has not proved that the driver was not competent to drive the offending vehicle and insured has committed any willful breach in terms of Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act read with the insurance contract. My this view is fortified by the Apex Court judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105 of the judgment hereinbelow: ?105. ..................... (i) ........................ (ii) ........................ My this view is fortified by the Apex Court judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105 of the judgment 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 sub-section (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. (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 Section149 (2) of the Act.? 10. 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 Section149 (2) of the Act.? 10. On this point, I am also supported by the latest judgment of the apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 217 , that the insurer has to prove that the insured has committed willful breach of the insurance policy and it is not for the insured to move here and there. It is apt to reproduce Para 10 of the judgment. ?10. In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer under Section 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. 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 case. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh case. 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.? 11. The second argument that the compensation awarded is excessive is devoid of any force, for the following reasons. 12. The injured, a young man has lost all the charm of his life. The said accident has shattered his physical frame and has become permanent disabled rather burden on his family. He has lost all the amenities of his life. He is entitled to compensation more than what he was awarded by the Tribunal, but he has not questioned the impugned award. 13. Having said so, the appeal is dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. Send down the record forthwith.