JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice. Both these appeals are outcome of a motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by driver, namely Shri Narinder Singh Patial, while driving Maruti Van, bearing registration No. HP- 23 A – 1468, belonging to Shri Sarwan Singh, rashly and negligently, on the intervening night of 26th and 27th November, 2005, at about 12.20 A.M., at Dehlan Mor, District Una. Thus, I deem it proper to dispose of both these appeals by a common judgment. 2. In FAO No. 196 of 2008, the appellant-owner-insured has questioned the award, dated 30th November, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 17 of 2006, titled as Bimla Sharma & another versus Sarwan Singh and others, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 2,98,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 and 2, as per the apportionment made in the award, with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of deposit of the entire award amount till its realization (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award-I) on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 3. The appellant-owner-insured was saddled with liability and the insurer-respondent No. 5 came to be exonerated. Though, the appellant-owner-insured was saddled with liability, but the insurer-United India Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award, at the first instance, with a right to recover the same from the insured-owner-appellant. The appellant-owner-insured has questioned the impugned award-I only to the extent of saddling him with liability and discharging the insurer-respondent No. 5 from liability. 4. FAO No. 28 of 2011 is directed against the award, dated 2nd November, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal) in MAC Petition No. 25 of 2008, titled as Rajesh Kumar versus Shri Kamal Kishore and others, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 1,17,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 and against the insurer-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the impugned award-II), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 5. The appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award-II on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the appellant-insurer with liability. 6. 5. The appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award-II on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the appellant-insurer with liability. 6. In order to determine the issues and return findings in both the appeals, viz-a-viz, the questions in dispute, it is profitable to give a brief resume of the facts of the case. Brief facts: 7. In both the claim petitions, it is averred that the driver, namely Shri Narinder Singh Patial, had driven the Maruti Van, bearing registration No. HP-23 A 1468, rashly and negligently, during the intervening night of 26th and 27th November, 2005, hit motorcycle, bearing registration No. HP-20 B-5303, which was being driven by Shri Deepak Sharma and Shri Rajesh Kumar was the pillion rider alongwith Shri Aman Kumar, sustained injuries. Shri Deepak Sharma succumbed to the injuries alongwith Shri Aman Kumar (claimant in MAC Petition No. 17 of 2006). 8. The claimants have sought compensation in both the claim petitions on the grounds taken in the memo of claim petitions. The insured-owner, the driver and the insurer-United India Insurance Company have filed objections. In both the claim petitions, the insurer-United India Insurance Company has not denied the averments, viz-a-viz, occurrence of accident in its reply. In fact, the replies are evasive. 9. The claimants, in MAC Petition No. 17 of 2006, which is the subject matter of FAO No. 196 of 2008, has specifically averred that thier son, Aman Kumar, became victim of accident, which was caused by the driver of offending Maruti Van, details of which are given in paras 8, 9 and 23 of the claim petition. The owner-Sarwan Singh has not replied the averments specifically. However, in reply to para 22 and 23, it is pleaded that that the driver-Narinder Singh Patial had not driven the Maruti Van rashly and negligently, but had parked the same on a kacha road in order to drink water. At that particular point of time, Shri Deepak Sharma was driving the motorcycle and Shri Rajesh Kumar and Shri Aman Kumar were the pillion riders, was being driven by said Shri Deepak Sharma at a high speed, hit the Maruti Van, sustained injuries, thus, the accident was outcome of rashness and negligence of said Shri Deepak Sharma. The driver-Narinder Singh Patial and Shri Kamal Kishore, the purchaser-owner of the Maruti Van, had also resisted the claim petition on the same grounds. 10. The driver-Narinder Singh Patial and Shri Kamal Kishore, the purchaser-owner of the Maruti Van, had also resisted the claim petition on the same grounds. 10. The insurer has denied all the averments contained in the claim petition evasively and virtually has not taken the defence except that the driver of the Maruti Van, i.e. Shri Narinder Singh Patial was not having the valid and effective driving licence and the claim petition was hit by non-joinder of necessary parties. The insurer has not taken any other ground. 11. In MAC Petition No. 25 of 2008, which is the subject matter of FAO No. 28 of 2011, the claimant has specifically pleaded in paras 9, 10 and 24 what was the cause of the accident and how the accident was caused by the driver of the Maruti Van, namely, Shri Narinder Singh Patial. The insurer-United India Insurance Company has denied all the facts evasively and resisted the claim petition on the grounds, mention of which has been made hereinabove. 12. Thus, precisely, the insurer has not pleaded that the accident was outcome of rashness and negligence of the motorcyclist-Deepak Sharma. 13. After noticing the pleadings, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal in MAC No. 17 of 2006: “1. Whether petitioner Aman Kumar died in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of Maruti van (HP-23A-1468) by Narinder Patial (respondent 3) on November 27, 2005. ...OPP 2. If the above issue 1 is proved, whether petitioners are entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom. ...OPP 3. Whether the accident was attributable to rashness and negligence of the driver of motor cycle (No. HP-20B-5303j ...OPR-1 to 3 4. Whether the driver of Maruti Van was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. ...OPR-4 5. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of the owner of motor cycle (No. HP-20B-5303j ... OPR-4 6. Relief.” 14. Following issues came to be framed in MAC Petition No. 25 of 2008: “1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 27.11.2005 at about 12.30 a.m. at village Dehlan, involving van No. HP-23-A-1468 owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently as alleged? ...OPP 2. OPR-4 6. Relief.” 14. Following issues came to be framed in MAC Petition No. 25 of 2008: “1. Whether petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 27.11.2005 at about 12.30 a.m. at village Dehlan, involving van No. HP-23-A-1468 owned by respondent No. 1 and driven by respondent No. 2 rashly and negligently as alleged? ...OPP 2. 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 petition is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? ...OPR-3 4. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle in question at the relevant time?...OPR-3 5. Whether the respondent No. 4 had sold vehicle No. Hp-23-A-1468 to respondent No. 1 before the accident. If so with what effect? ... OPR-4 6. Relief.” 15. The question which arises for consideration in FAO No. 196 of 2008 is - whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insured with liability and exonerated/discharged the insurer- United India Insurance Company from liability? The question in FAO No. 28 of 2011 is in reverse form, i.e. - whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer-United India Insurance company with liability or otherwise? 16. The parties have not questioned the impugned awards on any count. However, the owner-Sarwan Singh and the insurer- United India Insurance Company have disputed the findings, so far it relates to saddling the liability in both the impugned awards. Thus, both the impugned awards have attained finality except to the extent who is to be saddled with liability. 17. The transferee-owner and the driver, i.e. Shri Kamal Kishore and Shri Narinder Singh Patial, have not disputed the findings returned on any of the issues. However, I have gone through the findings returned in both the cases and am of the considered view that there is ample evidence on the record to the effect that the driver-Narinder Singh Patial had driven the Maruti Van rashly and negligently and caused the accident. FIR No. 671/2005, dated 27th November, 2005 was also registered against the said driver under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”), at Police Station Una. 18. FIR No. 671/2005, dated 27th November, 2005 was also registered against the said driver under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”), at Police Station Una. 18. The insurer has only disputed the liability on the ground that the driver of Maruti Van, Shri Narinder Singh Patial, was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 19. Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer, while addressing arguments, argued that the motorcyclist-Deepak Sharma, had driven the motorcycle rashly and negligently and there were two pillion riders on the said motorcycle at the relevant point of time, which is not permissible as per the requisite documents and the insurance policy. The insurer has neither taken this ground before the Tribunal in both the cases, as observed hereinabove, nor has led any evidence to this effect. 20. It is beaten law of land that a party to the lis has to plead and prove the grounds available in his/their armoury as a weapon of defence. Admittedly, this ground was neither pleaded nor raised in the claim petitions by the insurer-United India Insurance Company, not to speak of the proof of the same, thus, cannot now be pressed into service. 21. The Apex Court has laid down the same principle in Fahim Ahmad & Ors. versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2045. It is apt to reproduce para 6 of the judgment herein: “6. Although the plea of breach of the conditions of policy was raised before the Tribunal, yet neither any issue was framed nor any evidence led to prove the same. In our opinion, it was mandatory for respondent No. 1-Insurance Company not only to plead the said breach, but also substantiate the same by adducing positive evidence in respect of the same. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be presumed that there was breach of the conditions of policy. Thus, there was no reason to fasten the said liability of payment of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the appellants herein.” 22. In the said case, the plea of breach was pleaded, rather raised, but not proved. But in the instant case, neither such plea was pleaded nor proved. Thus, there was no reason to fasten the said liability of payment of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the appellants herein.” 22. In the said case, the plea of breach was pleaded, rather raised, but not proved. But in the instant case, neither such plea was pleaded nor proved. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the insurer is devoid of any force. 23. Dwelling on the question – whether the driver of the offending Maruti Van, Shri Narinder Singh Patial, was having valid and effective driving licence to drive the said Maruti Van? 24. Admittedly, the driver was having licence to drive motorcycle and heavy goods vehicle. Maruti Van falls within the definition of 'Light Motor Vehicle' in terms of Section 2 (21) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”). It is apt to reproduce Section 2 (21) of the MV Act herein: “2. ……………………………………… (21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road- roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms.” 25. The gross weightage of a light motor vehicle is given as 7500 kilograms. Meaning thereby, the vehicle, gross weight of which is 7500 kilograms, comes under the description and kind of 'light motor vehicle', as per definition (supra). 26. The vehicle, the gross weight of which is more than 12,000 kilograms, falls within the definition and description of a 'heavy goods vehicle'. It is apt to reproduce Section 2 (16) of the MV Act herein: “2. …………………. (16). “heavy goods vehicle” means any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms.” 27. The claimants and the insurer in both the cases have led evidence and proved that the driver of the Maruti Van was competent to drive a heavy goods vehicle and a motorcycle, as per the driving licence, copy of which is on the record as Ext. R-1 in MAC Petition No. 17 of 2006 and as Ext. R-1 and Ext. RW-5/A in MAC Petition No. 25 of 2008. 28. R-1 in MAC Petition No. 17 of 2006 and as Ext. R-1 and Ext. RW-5/A in MAC Petition No. 25 of 2008. 28. Thus, the question, which arises for consideration, is – whether a driver, who is competent to drive a 'heavy goods vehicle', the gross and unladen weight of which is more than 12,000 kilograms, can drive a 'light motor vehicle', the unladen weight of which does not exceed 7500 kilograms? The answer is in affirmative. 29. While going through Sections 2 and 3 of the MV Act, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the requirement, as per the law, is that the driver has to first obtain learner's licence, thereafter he can obtain other types/kinds of driving licences. In terms of mandate of Section 7 of the MV Act, a person can be granted licence to drive a transport vehicle provided he is holding a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year. 30. The purpose of mandate of Sections 2 and 3 of the MV Act came up for consideration before the Apex Court in a case titled as Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & ors. versus Smt. Santosh & Ors., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 2791, and after examining the various provisions of the MV Act held that Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on the driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle, which he intends to drive. It is apt to reproduce paras 19 and 23 of the judgment herein: “19. Section 2(2) of the Act defines articulated vehicle which means a motor vehicle to which a semi-trailer is attached; Section 2(34) defines public place; Section 2(44) defines 'tractor' as a motor vehicle which is not itself constructed to carry any load; Section 2(46) defines `trailer' which means any vehicle, other than a semi- trailer and a sidecar, drawn or intended to be drawn by a motor vehicle. Section 3 of the Act provides for necessity for driving license; Section 5 provides for responsibility of owners of the vehicle for contravention of Sections 3 and 4; Section 6 provides for restrictions on the holding of driving license; Section 56 provides for compulsion for having certificate of fitness for transport vehicles; Section 59 empowers the State to fix the age limit of the vehicles; Section 66 provides for necessity for permits to ply any vehicle for any commercial purpose; Section 67 empowers the State to control road transport; Section 112 provides for limits of speed; Sections 133 and 134 imposes a duty on the owners and the drivers of the vehicles in case of accident and injury to a person; Section 146 provides that no person shall use any vehicle at a public place unless the vehicle is insured. In addition thereto, the Motor Vehicle Taxation Act provides for imposition of passenger tax and road tax etc. 20. ……………………… 21. ……………………… 22. ……………………… 23. Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving license for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licenses for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of the said Section. 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', 'heavy goods vehicle', 'heavy passenger motor vehicle', 'invalid carriage', 'light motor vehicle', 'maxi-cab', 'medium goods vehicle', 'medium passenger motor vehicle', 'motor-cab', 'motorcycle', 'omnibus', 'private service vehicle', 'semi- trailer', 'tourist vehicle', 'tractor', 'trailer' and 'transport vehicle'. 31. The Apex Court in another case titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Annappa Irappa Nesaria & Ors., reported in 2008 AIR SCW 906, has also discussed the purpose of amendments, which were made in the year 1994 and the definitions of 'light motor vehicle', 'medium goods vehicle' and the necessity of having a driving licence. It is apt to reproduce paras 8 to 16 of the judgment herein: “8. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the contention raised herein by the appellant has neither been raised before the Tribunal nor before the High Court. It is apt to reproduce paras 8 to 16 of the judgment herein: “8. Mr. S.N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the contention raised herein by the appellant has neither been raised before the Tribunal nor before the High Court. In any event, it was urged, that keeping in view the definition of the 'light motor vehicle' as contained in Section 2(21) of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short), a light goods carriage would come within the purview thereof. A 'light goods carriage' having not been defined in the Act, the definition of the 'light motor vehicle' clearly indicates that it takes within its umbrage, both a transport vehicle and a non-transport vehicle. Strong reliance has been placed in this behalf by the learned counsel in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., [ 1999 (6) SCC 620 ]. 9. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which was enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to motor vehicles, is a complete code. 10. Section 2 of the Act provides for interpretation of the terms contained herein. It employs the words 'unless the context otherwise requires'. Section 2(16) of the Act defines 'heavy goods vehicle' to mean any goods carriage the gross vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms. 11. Section 2(21) defines 'light motor vehicle' and Section 2(23) defines 'medium goods vehicle' as under: “Light motor vehicle means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7500 kilograms.” “Medium goods vehicle means any goods carriage other than a light motor vehicle or a heavy goods vehicle” Section 3 of the Act is in the following terms: “3. Necessity for driving licence.- (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motorcab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.” 12. The Central Government has framed Rules known as The Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 13. The word Form has been defined in Rule 2(e) to mean a Form appended to the rules. 'I Apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the following description: (d) Light motor vehicle (e) Medium goods vehicle (g) Heavy goods vehicle (j) Motor vehicles of the following description:....' After amendment the relevant portion of Form 4 reads as under: 'I Apply for a licence to enable me to drive vehicles of the following description: (d) Light motor vehicle (e) Transport vehicle (j) Motor vehicles of the following description:....' 14. Rule 14 prescribes for filing of an application in Form 4, for a licence to drive a motor vehicle, categorizing the same in nine types of vehicles. Clause (e) provides for 'Transport vehicle' which has been substituted by G.S.R. 221(E) with effect from 28.3.2001. Before the amendment in 2001, the entries medium goods vehicle and heavy goods vehicle existed which have been substituted by transport vehicle. As noticed hereinbefore, Light Motor Vehicles also found place therein. 15. Light Motor Vehicle is defined in Section 2(21) and, therefore, in view of the provision, as then existed, it included a light transport vehicle. Form 6 provides for the manner in which the licence is to be granted, the relevant portion whereof read as under: “Authorisation to drive transport vehicle Number ……………………Date ……………………. Authorised to drive transport vehicle with effect from ……………. Badge number ………………………………….. Signature ………………………. …………………………………….. Designation of the licensing authority Name and designation of their authority who conducted the driving test.” 16. From what has been noticed hereinbefore, it is evident that 'transport vehicle' has now been substituted for 'medium goods vehicle' and 'heavy goods vehicle'. The light motor vehicle continued, at the relevant point of time, to cover both, 'light passenger carriage vehicle' and 'light goods carriage vehicle'. A driver who had a valid licence to drive a light motor vehicle, therefore, was authorised to drive a light goods vehicle as well. 32. At the cost of repetition, admittedly, the driver was having valid and effective driving licence to drive a 'heavy goods vehicle'. I wonder, how it can be said that he was not competent to drive a 'light motor vehicle', i.e. the Maruti Van. 33. 32. At the cost of repetition, admittedly, the driver was having valid and effective driving licence to drive a 'heavy goods vehicle'. I wonder, how it can be said that he was not competent to drive a 'light motor vehicle', i.e. the Maruti Van. 33. In the given circumstances, the question is - whether driving of one type of vehicle, though the driver was having licence to drive another type of vehicle, was the cause of accident? 34. The insurer has not pleaded and proved that the cause of accident was because of driving different kind of vehicle. The insurer had to plead and prove that cause of the accident was because of driving of different kind of vehicle. No such ground is taken in any of the claim petition. Thus, how can it lie in the mouth of Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, Advocate, or how can it be pleaded by the insurer that the driver, who is competent to drive a 'heavy goods vehicle', cannot drive a 'light motor vehicle'. 35. The Apex Court in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh and others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531, held that it has to be pleaded and proved that the driver was having licence to drive one kind of vehicle, was found driving another kind of vehicle and that was the cause of accident. If no such plea is taken, that cannot be ground for discharging the insurer. It is apt to reproduce para 84 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 sub-section (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 (a) Motorcycles 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 sub-section (2) of Section 10. The definition clause in Section 2 of the Act defines various categories of vehicles which are covered in broad types mentioned in sub-section (2) of Section 10. They are `goods carriage', `heavy-goods vehicle', `heavy passenger motor-vehicle', `invalid carriage', `light motor-vehicle', `maxi-cab', `motorcycle', `omnibus', `private service 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 `maxi- cab', `motor-cab' 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.” Emphasis added. 36. I have dealt with series of cases of like nature as a Judge of Jammu and Kashmir High Court and held that it is for the insurer to plead and prove that cause of the accident was because of the said reason and the owner-insured has committed willful breach. 37. I have also determined the said issue in a bunch of appeals, FAO No. 77 of 2008 being the lead case, titled as National Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Nirmala Devi & others, decided on 11th April, 2014. It is apt to reproduce paras 18 and 25 of the said judgment herein: “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 insurer- Insurance Company. 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 insurer- Insurance 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. ………………. 20.…………………………. 21…………………………… 22……………………………….. 23……………………………….. 24……………………………….. 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.” 38. In another bunch of four appeals, FAO No. 318 of 2006 being the lead case, titled as National Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Sumna Devi & others, decided on 9th May, 2014, the same point was discussed and held that the insurer is to be saddled with liability. It is apt to reproduce paras 23 and 25 of the judgment herein: “23. It was not also the case of the Insurer of the offending bus-United India Insurance Company before the Tribunal that the accident was outcome of use of different kind of vehicle by the driver because he was not competent to drive the said vehicle. This fact has not been pleaded and proved. Even otherwise, it was for the insurer to plead and prove that the insured-owner has committed willful breach in terms of the policy which would have been the ground for discharging the insurer from liability. 24………………………….. 25. Having said so, the Tribunal below has fallen in error in returning the finding that Karam Chand, owner/driver of the offending bus, was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle-bus at the time of accident. 24………………………….. 25. Having said so, the Tribunal below has fallen in error in returning the finding that Karam Chand, owner/driver of the offending bus, was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle-bus at the time of accident. The United India Insurance Company-insurer of the bus, was to be saddled with 50% liability without any right of recovery.” 39. Having glance of the above discussions, I am of the considered view that the insurer-United India Insurance Company has failed to prove that the insured has committed any willful breach and that the driver was not having valid and effective driving licence. Accordingly, FAO No. 196 of 2008 merits to be granted and the impugned award-I merits to be modified by saddling the insurer-United India Insurance Company with entire liability. FAO No. 28 of 2011 merits to be dismissed and the impugned award-II merits to be upheld. 40. FAO No. 196 of 2008 is accordingly allowed and the impugned award-I is modified, as indicated hereinabove and FAO No. 28 of 2011 is dismissed and impugned award-II is upheld. 41. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant in FAO No. 28 of 2011 and in FAO No. 196 of 2008, the insurer is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount before the Registry of this Court within eight weeks and be distributed amongst the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award-I. On deposition of the amount by the insurer, the amount deposited by the appellant-insured-owner (in FAO No. 196 of 2008), if any, be released in his favour through payee's account cheque. 42. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on each of the files.