JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice. Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment as the same are the outcome of vehicular accident, which was caused by the driver, namely Manmohan Singh, who had driven the offending vehicle­Maruti Van, bearing registration No. HP­53­0559, rashly and negligently, on 15th December, 1999, while going from Kaja to Village Dehan in Palampur, lost control over the said vehicle, which fell down from a curve near Pangi Nallah in a khad, all the passengers including the driver sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries on spot. 2.The legal representatives of one of the passengers, namely, Naresh Kumar, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Dharamshala, being M.A.C.P. No. 52­P/II/03, titled Nirmala Devi & another versus Kishori Lal & others, whereby compensation to the tune of ‘ 3,50,000/­ with interest @ 71/2% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the deposit of the amount before the Tribunal came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and saddled the insurer with liability (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”). The insurer, feeling aggrieved, has questioned the said impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 77 of 2008. 3.The legal representatives of another passenger, namely, Shri Chet Ram Kaundal, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­cum­Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P, being Claim Petition No. 81/02, 100/05, titled Khima Devi & others versus Kishor Chand & others, whereby compensation to the tune of ‘ 9,80,000/­ with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the owner and the driver were saddled with liability, thereby exonerated the insurer­Insurance Company from the liability. The owner­Kishore Chand, feeling aggrieved, has questioned the said award by the medium of FAO No. 455 of 2010. 4.A claim petition was also filed on behalf of third passenger, which was granted and is not subject matter of any appeal, as stated by the learned counsel for the parties. The owner­Kishore Chand, feeling aggrieved, has questioned the said award by the medium of FAO No. 455 of 2010. 4.A claim petition was also filed on behalf of third passenger, which was granted and is not subject matter of any appeal, as stated by the learned counsel for the parties. Brief facts: 5.The claimants in both the claim petitions have averred that the accident was outcome of the use of a motor vehicle­maruti van, which had fallen in a khad at a curve on 15th December, 1999, while coming from Kaja to Village Dehan, when the driver lost control over the vehicle and all the passengers including the driver lost their lives. 6.The claimants in both the claim petitions have sought compensation on the ground that they have lost their bread earners. Both the Tribunals granted compensation in favour of the claimants, but in one case, the insurer was saddled with liability, which is the subject matter of FAO No. 77 of 2008 and in another case, the owner and the driver were saddled with liability, which is the subject matter of FAO No. 455 of 2010. 7.The fact of the matter is that the claimants have not questioned the adequacy of the compensation. Thus, the only issue involved in these appeals is – whether the insurer came to be rightly saddled with liability by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Dharamshala, which is challenged in FAO No. 77 of 2008, or the driver and the owner came to be rightly saddled with liability in terms of the impugned award made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­cum­Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, which is the subject matter of FAO No. 455 of 2010? 8.It is apt to reproduce the issues, which came to be framed in M.A.C.P. No. 52­P/II/03: “1. Whether deceased driver Manmohan Singh was driving vehicle No. HP­53­0559 rashly and negligently on 15.12.1999 and he could not control the vehicle at Pangi Nallah which fell down as a result of which Naresh Kumar who was travelling in the said vehicle alongwith other occupants died on the spot alongwith driver and all other occupants, as alleged? ... OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? ...OPP 3. Whether the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger as alleged, if so, its effect? ... OPR­3 4. ... OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from whom? ...OPP 3. Whether the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger as alleged, if so, its effect? ... OPR­3 4. Whether the deceased driver was not holding a valid and effective DL at the time of alleged accident? ...OPR­1 to 4 5. Relief.” 9. The following issues came to be framed in Claim Petition No. 81/02, 100/05: “1. Whether the driver of the Maruti Van No. HP­53­0559 was driving the van in rash and negligent manner on 15/16­12­1999 at place Pangi Nala Tehsil Kalpa, resulting in the death of ChetRam as alleged? ... OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount and from whom the petitioners are entitled? ... OPP 3. Whether the respondent No. 1 had sold the Maruti Van No. HP­53­0559 in favour of the respondent No. 3 on the basis of the agreement dated 16­10­1 999 as alleged? ...OPR­1 4. Whether the driver of the Maruti van was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and the vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged? ... OPR­2 5. Relief.” FAO No.77 of 2008: Issue No. 1: 10.Issue No. 1 is not in dispute. So, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld. Issue No.3: 11.Issue No. 3 is also not in dispute and was not pressed and argued by the learned counsel for the appellant­insurer. Even otherwise, the insurer has not led any evidence to prove that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. Thus, the findings returned on issue No. 3 are also upheld. Issues No. 2 and 4: 12.Issues No. 2 and 4 are interlinked. However, I deem it proper to determine issue No. 4 first. 13.According to the insurer, the driver was not having valid licence to drive the vehicle. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver was not competent to drive the offending vehicle. Even otherwise, had the insurer discharged the onus, it had further to prove that the owner has committed willful breach. The insurer has not led any evidence to prove that the driver was not having the valid licence and the owner has committed any willful breach. Even otherwise, had the insurer discharged the onus, it had further to prove that the owner has committed willful breach. The insurer has not led any evidence to prove that the driver was not having the valid licence and the owner has committed any willful breach. 14.My this view is fortified by the Apex Court judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 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 hereinbelow:“105. (i) (ii) (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub­section (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. (iv) The insurance companies are, 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 vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them. (v) (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.” 15.It is also profitable to reproduce para 10 of the latest judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217, 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. 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.” 16.I have gone through the record. 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.” 16.I have gone through the record. It is apt to record herein that the appellant in FAO No. 455 of 2010 has placed on record the certificate, which appears to have been issued by the Registering and Licensing Authority, Palampur, District Kangra, which do disclose that the deceased driver was having licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. Thus, the argument advanced by Ms. Devyani Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, is not tenable. 17. Now, the question is – whether the driver, who is having the driving licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle, can drive a maruti van? 18. Maruti Van falls within the definition of ‘Light Motor Vehicle’, thus the driver was having an effective and valid driving licence. If a driver is having a licence to drive a particular kind of vehicle and was driving another kind of vehicle, though falling under the same description/definition, cannot be a ground to exonerate the insurer­Insurance Company. It is worthwhile to mention herein that it is not the case of the insurer or the insured that driving of a different kind of vehicle by the driver was the cause of the accident. 19.The Apex Court in Swaran Singh’s case (supra) has also held that it cannot be a ground that the driver was having a licence to drive one kind of vehicle and, at the particular time, was driving another kind of vehicle, for exonerating the insurer. It is apt to reproduce paras 84 and 85 of the judgment herein: “84. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub­section (2) of said section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are : (1) Motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are : (1) Motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub­section (2) of Section 10. They are ‘goods carriage’, ‘heavy­goods vehicle’, ‘heavy passenger motor­vehicle’, ‘invalid carriage, ‘light motor­vehicle’, maxi­cab’, ‘medium goods vehicle’, ‘medium passenger motor­vehicle, ‘motor cab’, ‘motorcycle’, ‘omnibus’, ‘private service vehicle’, ‘semi­trailer’, ‘tourist vehicle’, ‘tractor’, ‘trailer’, and ‘transport vehicle’. In claims for compensation for accidents, various kinds of breaches with regard to the conditions of driving licences arise for consideration before the Tribunal. A person possessing a driving licence for ‘motorcycle without gear’, for which he has no licence. Cases may also arise where a holder of driving licence for ‘light motor vehicle’ is found to be driving a ‘maxi­cab’, ‘motor­cab’ or ‘omnibus’ for which he has no licence. In each case on evidence led before the Tribunal, a decision has to be taken whether the fact of the driver possessing licence for one type of vehicle but found driving another type of vehicle, was the main or contributory cause of accident. If on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence. 85. We have construed and determined the scope of sub­clause (ii) of sub­section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches of inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles. Minor breaches of licence conditions, such as want of medical fitness certificate, requirement about age of the driver and the like not found to have been the direct cause of the accident, would be treated as minor breaches of inconsequential deviation in the matter of use of vehicles. Such minor and inconsequential deviations with regard to licensing conditions would not constitute sufficient ground to deny the benefit of coverage of insurance to the third parties.” 20.Thus, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Dharamshala, has rightly returned the findings and accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 4 are upheld. Consequently, findings returned on issue No. 2 are also upheld. FAO No. 455 of 2010: 21.The insurer has not led any evidence. The evidence led has remained unrebutted. It is astonishing how the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­cum­Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, came to the conclusion that the driver was not having the effective and valid driving licence. It was for the insurer to plead and prove, as discussed hereinabove, that the driver was not having effective/valid driving licence. Without having any proof on the file, the findings returned on issue No. 4 are not tenable. As discussed hereinabove, the appellant has produced on record a certificate, which do disclose that the driver was having the licence. Thus, the findings returned on issue No. 4 are set aside. 22.Learned counsel for the appellant in FAO No. 77 of 2008 argued that in another case, the owner was saddled with liability and he has not questioned the same, thus, has attained finality. 23.It is beaten law of land that granting of compensation is a welfare legislation and the hypertechnicalities, mystic maybes, procedural wrangles and tangles have no role to play. 24.Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and Rule 232 of the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999, provide which provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are applicable before the Claims Tribunal. 25.The aim and object behind these provisions is that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has to decide a claim petition summarily as early as possible in order to achieve the purpose. In case a Tribunal banks upon the procedural wrangles and tangles and other technicalities, that will defeat the purpose of the Act. 25.The aim and object behind these provisions is that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has to decide a claim petition summarily as early as possible in order to achieve the purpose. In case a Tribunal banks upon the procedural wrangles and tangles and other technicalities, that will defeat the purpose of the Act. Awarding of compensation is just to ameliorate the sufferings of the victims of vehicular accidents and to help the victims as early as possible, who are hapless and helpless, in order to save them from social evils and should not be thrown out of the Court on mere technicalities. 26. Having said so, the insurer came to be rightly saddled with liability and the appeal, being FAO No. 77 of 2008, is dismissed. The award, which is subject matter of FAO No. 455 of 2010, merits to be modified by providing that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the owner and the driver with liability. Accordingly, the award, which has been challenged in FAO No. 455 of 2010, is modified by providing that the insurer is saddled with liability and the appeal is disposed of. 27.Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.