JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 30th September, 2006, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­II, Kangra at Dharamshala, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in MACP No. 60­B/2002, titled as Chetan Sood versus Prem Chand & others, whereby ` 2,64,145/­ came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant alongwith interest @ 71/2% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned award"), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2.The only question involved in this appeal is ­ whether the Tribunal has rightly given right of recovery to the insurer­ National Insurance Company - respondent No. 2? The other facts are not disputed. However, it is necessary to give a summary of the case herein. Brief facts: `2. The claimant­Chetan Sood became the victim of the vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver­Sanjay Kumar, who was driving the offending vehicle, bus bearing registration No. HP­39­8535, rashly and negligently, on 22nd February, 2002, near Bus Stand Joginder Nagar, District Mandi, H.P. His left arm struck against the stationary jeep parked on the kacha portion, remained admitted in different hospitals, constraining him to file the claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of ` 2,50,000 /­ as per the break­ups given in the claim petition. 3.The claim petition was resisted by the insurer, the driver and the legal representatives of the owner­insured on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. 7. The following issues were framed by the Tribunal on 15th December, 2003: "1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries on his person on account of motor accident which took place on 22­2­2002 at about 2.20 P.M. at Jogindernagar, when he was travelling in the bus bearing registration No. HP­39­8535 owned by the respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No.2 rashly and negligently? ... OPP2.If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? ...OPP 3. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to his own negligence, if so, its effect? ... ... OPP2.If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? ...OPP 3. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries due to his own negligence, if so, its effect? ... OPR­1& 2 4.Whether the respondent No.2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time and the vehicle was plied in breach of the insurance policy?0PR­3 5.Whether the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured with the respondent No.3? ... OPR­3 6.Whether the claim petition is bad for non­ joinder of necessary parties? ... OPR­3 7.Whether the vehicle was plied without any route permit, registration certificate, if so its effect?... OPR­3 8.Whether the petition has been filed in collusion with the respondents No. 1 and 2, as alleged?... OPR­3 9. Relief." 8.The claimant has examined seven witnesses and has also stepped into the witness box himself as PW­4 in support of his case. Respondent No. 1 has examined Pawan Kumar, who is one of the appellants. Respondent No. 2­driver­Sanjay Kumar has examined Bhag Singh and the National Insurance Company has examined Satya Dev. 9.After perusal of the evidence and the documents on the file, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of ` 2,64,145/alongwith interest in favour of the claimant and held that the owner has committed breach, but at the first instance, directed the National Insurance Company to satisfy the award with the right of recovery. 10.The appellants have questioned the impugned award so far it relates to right of recovery. However, I deem it proper to discuss issuewise whether the findings returned by the Tribunal are legal or otherwise. Issue No. 1: 11.The claimant has proved by leading oral as well as documentary evidence that the driver­Sanjay Kumar has driven the offending vehicle­bus, bearing registration No. HP­39­8535, rashly and negligently on 22nd February, 2002, while going from Joginder Nagar Bus Stand. The claimant sustained injuries because of the rash and negligent driving when the claimant's left arm struck against the stationary jeep parked on the kacha portion. FIR No. 46 of 2002 was registered at Police Station Joginder Nagar under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Injured­claimant was taken to Sub Divisional Hospital, Joginder Nagar. Thereafter, he was admitted at Government Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Paprola from 27th February, 2002 to 5th March, 2002. FIR No. 46 of 2002 was registered at Police Station Joginder Nagar under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. Injured­claimant was taken to Sub Divisional Hospital, Joginder Nagar. Thereafter, he was admitted at Government Ayurvedic College and Hospital, Paprola from 27th February, 2002 to 5th March, 2002. He was operated but lost the power of his left arm which became useless. Then, he was taken to Pathankot in Punjab for treatment and was under treatment. There is no rebuttal to the said evidence. Accordingly, findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld. Issue No.3: 12.Issue No. 3 is interlinked with issue No. 1. However, I deem it proper to mention herein that respondents No. 1 and 2, i.e. the owner­insured and driver, have not led any evidence to prove that the claimant sustained injuries because of his own negligence. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 3 are also upheld. Issue No.5: 13.The insurer has failed to prove that the vehicle was not insured, thus, has failed to discharge the onus. Even, the insurer has not questioned the award on any count. Accordingly, findings returned on issue No. 5 are upheld. Issues No. 6 and 7: 14.These issues were not pressed by the insurer before the Tribunal and were decided against the insurer. The insurer has not questioned the said findings. Hence, the findings returned on issues No. 6 and 7 are upheld. Issue No.8: 15.The onus to prove this issue was on the insurer­National Insurance Company. But, it has failed to discharge the onus and the Tribunal, after examining the evidence, decided the said issue in favour of the claimant and against the insurer. Even otherwise, there was no need to frame issue No. 8 because this issue is covered by issues No. 1 and 3. Accordingly, findings returned on issue No. 8 are upheld. Issues No. 2 and 4: 16.The claimant, the insurer and the driver have not questioned the findings returned on issues No. 2 and 4. Thus, the findings returned on these issues in the impugned award have attained finality so far it relates to them. The owners­insured have questioned the impugned award on limited ground, i.e. whether right of recovery is rightly granted? Thus, the findings returned on these issues in the impugned award have attained finality so far it relates to them. The owners­insured have questioned the impugned award on limited ground, i.e. whether right of recovery is rightly granted? 17.I have perused the impugned award and gone through the minutes of the Tribunal's file, in particular, the driving licence, which is marked as Mark­A. 18.The findings returned are illegal and not in tune with the judgments made by the Apex Court and by the other High Courts. The insured­Pawan Kumar, when appeared as RW­1, has specifically stated that he has taken steps to ensure and satisfy whether the driver was having a valid licence. He has approached Registration Office, Palampur and verified the contents of the driving licence. He approached Registration Office, Palampur for the reason that the driving licence was renewed from time to time by the Licensing Authority, at Palampur. 19.The Tribunal has not discussed this aspect, but has shut its eyes and passed the award in breach of the judgments made by the Apex Court, particularly in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531. 20.The Tribunal has held that the insurer has proved by leading evidence that the driving licence was not issued at Bilaspur, but the insured has not examined any witness from the Registration Office, Palampur. It was not the duty of the insured­owner to go here and there. It appears that he has applied his mind, perused the driving licence, verified the same and thereafter employed the driver. The driver was driving the vehicle from pretty long time, i.e. right from the issuance of the driving licence, which was issued as per the notings from Bilaspur District and was renewed at Dharamshala and Palampur on 26th August, 1991 and 17th January, 1994. Thus, the insured has taken all steps, which he was required to do and has specifically taken the ground in the reply. It was for the insurer to lead evidence to prove that the owner has committed willful breach and the entries made in Mark­A on the file of the Tribunal are fake. 21.The Apex Court in Swaran Singh's case (supra) has held that the insured has not only to prove that the driver was not having valid driving licence, but has to prove that the owner has committed willful breach. 21.The Apex Court in Swaran Singh's case (supra) has held that the insured has not only to prove that the driver was not having valid driving licence, but has to prove that the owner has committed willful breach. 22.It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105 of the judgment hereinbelow:"105. (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 theAct." 23.The insurer has failed to discharge the onus and more so, in the present case, the owner has taken all necessary steps for verification of the driving licence, as discussed hereinabove. 24.In this context, the Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217, has held that the owner is not supposed to go beyond verification to the effect that the driver was having a valid driving licence and the competence of the driver. It is profitable to reproduce para 10 of the judgment hereinbelow: "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. 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. 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." 25.Having said so, the right of recovery granted is illegal and the insurer is to be saddled with the liability. 26.The claimant has not questioned the adequacy of the compensation, though it is meagre. 27.Keeping in view the discussion made hereinabove, the impugned award is set aside so far it relates to giving right of recovery to the insurer and it is modified by providing that the insurer is saddled with the liability. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and the appeal is disposed of alongwith all pending applications. 28.Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.