JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 18th December, 2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, H.P. (for short, "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. No.24 of 2010, titled Shashi Kala v. Salim and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,75,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the owner-insured (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The owner-insured has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in discharging the insurer and saddling the owner with the liability. The driver, claimant and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award on any ground and thus, it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The only question, which is to be determined in this appeal is, whether the Tribunal has rightly discharged the insurer and saddled the owner with the liability? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons. 4. Admittedly, the driver, namely, Prem Sagar Basi, of truck bearing registration No.HP-64-7486 was having valid driving licence to drive the heavy motor vehicle, renewed at Nalagarh at least six times. The insurer has examined the witnesses of the concerned Licensing Authority and proved that the licence was issued in favour of the driver renewed at least six times.. 5. The owner/appellant engaged the driver who was having the driving lincence duly renewed by the authority concerned. The renewal is not in dispute. Thus, it cannot be held that the driver was not having valid driving licence. 6. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner has committed willful breach, which it failed to do so. The Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531, held that it is for the insurer to prove and plead that the insured-owner has committed willful breach in terms of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the M.V. Act") read with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and driver was not having the valid and effective driving licence. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105(iii) of the judgment hereinbelow: "105. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105(iii) of the judgment hereinbelow: "105. (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". 7. The Apex Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 21 held 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. 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. 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." 8. Having said so, the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the insured-owner with the liability. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award is modified by providing that the insurer has to satisfy the impugned award. The insurer is directed to deposit the awarded amount within eight weeks from today before the Registry of this Court. On deposition, the Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee's account cheque, after proper identification. Thereafter, the amount deposited by the owner/appellant be released in his favour alongwith interest through payee's account cheque, after proper identification. 9. Send down the record. Appeal allowed.