JUDGMENT Mr. Jaspal Singh, J.: - Rajinder Puri, registered owner of Truck bearing No.PIL – 9566 has preferred the instant appeal feeling dissatisfied against Award dated August 5, 1996 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short, ‘Tribunal’) whereby the Tribunal, while disposing of claim petition bearing MACT No.5/75 of 1994, exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation and held the driver and owner i.e. respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the claim petition, liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.3,00,000/- to the claimants with interest as reflected in the impugned award. 2. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that it is an admitted fact that the vehicle in question was duly insured with Insurance Company – respondent No.3 on the date of accident and it was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to prove the contravention of the terms and conditions of the policy. Since it has failed to discharge its onus, it cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation. The appellant, owner of the vehicle in question, verified the driving license of the driver, at the time he was employed, which was bearing seal and signatures of the licensing authority. Besides, he had also taken care to see that the driver had the experience and skill required to drive the truck. The learned Tribunal has laid much stress upon the statement of RW-2 – Mohinder Singh Ahlmad, an employee of the Licensing Authority, Meerut who has deposed that driving license Ex.RW-2/1 was not issued by the Licensing Authority, Meerut. Neither the register was paginated nor he was the author or signatory of the entries in the license. So, the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal that driver was not holding a valid driving license and that there was no liability on the part of respondent No.3 – Insurance Company, are not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the impugned award deserves to be modified by shifting the liability upon the Insurance Company. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 – claimant and the Insurance Company have supported the impugned award submitting that the same is absolutely in consonance with the evidence available on file and settled canons of law. The appeal being without merits deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have given anxious thought to the rival submissions and have perused the record. The appeal being without merits deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have given anxious thought to the rival submissions and have perused the record. The only point which requires determination in the case in hand is whether respondent No.3 – Insurance Company is liable to make the payment of compensation, especially when driving license held by driver of offending vehicle is found to be fake. 5. Undisputedly, offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3 – Insurance Company on the date and time of alleged accident and it is obligatory upon Insurance Company to establish breach of the conditions of the policy to escape from its liability. In the case in hand, Insurance Company has adduced the evidence on record showing that copy of the driving license placed on record as Ex.RW-2/1 is fake and has not been issued by the competent authority. The statement of RW-2 is relevant in this regard, who on the basis of record, has categorically deposed that the driving license, copy of which is Ex.RW-2/1, was not issued by the Licensing Authority, Meerut. Report Ex.RW-3/1 also corroborates his version. Here, it would be pertinent to mention that the original driving license has not been produced on record by the driver of the offending vehicle. Rather he opted to slip away from the proceedings and was ultimately proceeded against ex-parte. Mere version of owner that he verified driving license or interviewed the driver when he was employed, is not sufficient to prove that liability to pay compensation shifts upon Insurance Company. So, it can be said that there is sufficient evidence available on the record that driver of offending vehicle namely Jeet Singh was not holding a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. 6. Now the question arises whether in such a situation, Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation? Such a question arose before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case Ishwar Chandra v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.; [2007(2) Law Herald (SC) 1090] : 2007(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 370 wherein it was held that in case the driver of vehicle did not have a license at all, liability to make payment of compensation fell on the owner since it was his obligation to take adequate care to see that driver had an appropriate license to drive the vehicle. Similarly, in cases National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Mohd. Similarly, in cases National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. G. Mohd. Vani & Ors; 2004 ACJ 1424 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Candingeddawa & Ors.; 2005 ACJ 40 , it was held that if driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving license, then Insurance Company after paying compensation amount would be entitled to recover the same from owner of vehicle. 7. In case Jawahar Singh v. Bala Jain and others; [2011(4) Law Herald (SC) 2669] : 2011 (3) R.C.R. (Civil) 269, the motorcycle was being driven by a minor without holding any valid driving license at the time of accident and it was observed by the Apex Court that the Insurance company had been rightly relieved of the liability of payment of compensation to claimants and such liability had been correctly fixed on the owner of the motorcycle. 8. Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, though offending vehicle was insured with Insurance Company but there being a violation or contravention of the terms and conditions of insurance policy, Insurance Company has rightly been absolved or exonerated from its liability to make the payment of the compensation so awarded by Tribunal. The findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are absolutely in consonance with the evidence available on the file and deserve no interference. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, finding no merits in the instant appeal, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————