JUDGMENT : R.K. Deshpande, J. 1. In Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 65 of 2003 filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant-Insurance Company, along with the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, i.e. Tractor bearing registration No.MH30/ E7161, and Trailer bearing registration No.MH30/ E2846, has been held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.2,75,000/- with proportionate costs and 9% per annum interest from the date of the petition till the payment is made in full to the claimant Nos. 1 to 6 and 8. The Insurance Company has, therefore, preferred this appeal claiming exoneration from the liability of payment of compensation on the defence that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the effective driving licence, as contemplated by Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The factual position is as under : The accident in question occurred on 20-1-2003, and as a result of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the husband of claimant No. 1, father of claimant Nos. 2 to 6, and son of claimant Nos. 7 and 8, died. The driver of the offending vehicle was holding a licence to drive the offending vehicle, but it expired on 26-1-1999, that is much before the date of the accident. The licence was renewed on 21-1-2003, that is immediately on the next date of occurring the accident. The Tribunal has recorded the finding that "no evidence is forthcoming that the driver was disqualified or had incurred any disqualification prior to the accident in question in getting his licence renewed after a period of about three years, after its expiry". It has been held that "by putting the Tractor at the time of accident at the hands of the respondent No. 1 by the respondent No. 2, he cannot be said to have committed the breach of condition of policy that too fundamental one entitling the respondent No. 3 to get exoneration from liability". 3. My attention is invited by the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the following decisions : (i) (2003) 3 SCC 338 , United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru and others. (ii) (2004) 3 SCC 297 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others. 3. My attention is invited by the learned counsels appearing for the parties to the following decisions : (i) (2003) 3 SCC 338 , United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru and others. (ii) (2004) 3 SCC 297 , National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others. (iii) 2009 (1) Mh.L.J. 566, Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. The defence of the appellant-Insurance Company in the written statement is to the effect that "the respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants, because at the relevant time, the respondent No. 1 was not holding the effective driving licence to drive the tractor and trolley in question". It is urged by Shri Pophaly, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company, that undisputedly the licence had expired on 26-1-1999 and no application for renewal was submitted within a period of thirty days, as required by Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He further submits that thereafter within a period of ninety days also, there was no renewal of licence and, therefore, the fact remains that on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding the effective driving licence. 4. The point for determination is as under : Whether the insurer was liable to be discharged on the defence that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding effective driving licence, as contemplated by Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act? 5. In the present, we are concerned with the liability of the appellant-Insurance Company towards a third party, the deceased herein. The law laid down by the Apex Court in Swaran Singh's case (supra) and followed thereafter, is that the burden of proof lies upon the Insurance Company to establish its defence, and in order to avoid its liability towards the insured, it has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling conditions of the policy regarding driving of vehicle by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. In the absence of any such evidence, the insurer cannot avoid its liability to pay the compensation to a third party, particularly when the undisputed position is that the vehicle was insured on the date of the accident with an Act policy. In the absence of any such evidence, the insurer cannot avoid its liability to pay the compensation to a third party, particularly when the undisputed position is that the vehicle was insured on the date of the accident with an Act policy. The insurer remains liable to a third party and can institute the separate proceedings to recover the said amount of compensation from the owner or the driver of the offending vehicle, as is permissible in law. The order passed by the Tribunal can, therefore, be modified to that extent. 6. In the present case, it is neither the stand taken nor the evidence led to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise due care in the matter of fulfilling conditions of the policy regarding driving of vehicle by a duly licensed driver. The Insurance Company cannot, therefore, be discharged from the liability of a third party. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. It is made clear that the appellant-Insurance Company shall be at liberty to institute appropriate proceedings against the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle to recover the amount of compensation paid to the claimants, and neither the judgment of the Tribunal nor this judgment shall come in the way of the Insurance Company. No order as to costs. 7. It is informed that the appellant-Insurance Company has deposited the entire amount in this Court, out of which 50% amount was permitted to be withdrawn by the claimants. In view of the order passed in this appeal, the claimants will be entitled to withdraw the balance amount lying in this Court with interest, if any accrued thereon.