JUDGMENT Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J. Heard Sri B.C. Pandey, learned counsel for appellant and perused the record. 2. The controversy involved in the present case in nut shell are that on 06.08.2002, Sri Rajesh Kumar Upadhyaya along with Amit Upadhyay, Brijesh Kumar Upadhyay and Dinesh Chandra Mishra were coming on Jeep No. U.P. 62 F 2771 from Upadhyay Pur, District Jaunpur, hwile the jeep reached Umrikhurd near Gayatri Petrol Pump, Dhakva Bazar, District Pratapgarh on Sultanpur-Jaunpur road reached, a Tractor No. U.P. 44 C 7534 which is coming from other side, due to rash and negligent driving has dashed the Jeep in question, as a result of which, Sri Amit Kumar died on spot and Sri Dinesh Chandra Mishra has also died. In order to claim the compensation due to death of Sri Rajesh Kumar, claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been filed by Sri Devendra Narain Upadhyay and Smt. Champa Devi/claimants, registered as MACP No. 145 of 2002 (Dev Narain Upadhyay and another Vs. Janjali Yadav and others). The Tribunal by means of the judgment and award dated 24.10.2007, allowed the claim petition thereby awarding compensation of Rs. 82,000/- with 6% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. 3. Aggrieved by the said fact, the present claim petition has been filed by Oriental Insurance Company. 4. Learned counsel for appellant while pressing the appeal has only argued that there is a contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Jeep No. U.P. 62 F 2771 in which deceased was travelling as well as the Tractor No. U.P. 44 C 7534, as such, Oriental Insurance Company/ appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, the sole question which is to be considered in the present case is whether it is open for the insurance co. to take a plea in respect of the rash and negligent driving as argued on the part of the claimant or can take only plea as per Section 149 (2) of the Act. Accordingly, the answer to the said question finds place in the judgment given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. to take a plea in respect of the rash and negligent driving as argued on the part of the claimant or can take only plea as per Section 149 (2) of the Act. Accordingly, the answer to the said question finds place in the judgment given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and others AIR 2004 SC 1531 , wherein the Apex Court has discussed all the principles and held how the insurer can be exonerated. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105 of the judgment herein below : - 105. .................................. (i). ...................................... (ii)........................................ (iii). The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in subsection (2) (a) (ii) of Section 149, has 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 the 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 a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv). Insurance Companies, 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 vehicles;the burden of proof wherefor would be on them. (v) .................................. (vi). Even where the insurer is able to prov e 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 the 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 insurer under Section 149 (2) of the Act." 6. It is also profitable to reproduce para 10 of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 S.C.C. 217 herein below : - "10. In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer under Section 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. 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". 7. 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". 7. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any force in the argument raised by learned counsel for appellant. 8. Thus, appeal lacks merit and is dismissed.