JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice (oral) All these three appeals have been preferred by the Insurance Company against the common award, dated 24th July, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, H.P. in three Claim Petitions bearing Nos.2/2001 (239/2005), titled Rajinder Kumar Arora vs. Vijay Kumar and others, 88/2001 (240/2005) titled Bimla Mehta alias Vimmi vs. Vijay Kumar and others, and 3/2001 (242/2005) titled Punam Arora vs. Vijay Kumar and others, impugned award). Brief facts 2. The Claim Petitions are the outcome of a vehicular accident, which was, allegedly, caused by original respondent No.2/Hans Raj, driver, while driving truck bearing registration No.HP-31-3622 rashly and negligently on 12th May, 2000, in which the claimants, namely, Rajinder Kumar, Bimla Mehta and Punam Arora sustained injuries. FIR was lodged, police was set in motion and after investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Hans Raj before the Court of competent jurisdiction, which was dismissed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi vide judgment dated 1st April, 2005 holding that the prosecution had failed to prove the identity of the driver and the fact that Hans Raj was the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time. It is stated, during the course of hearing, that the State has not questioned the said judgment, and thus, has attained finality. 3. Claimants Rajinder Kumar Arora, Bimla Mehta and Punam Arora filed three separate Claim Petitions bearing Nos.2/2001 (239/2005), 88/2001 (240/2005) and 3/2001(242/2005), respectively, claiming compensation, as per the break-ups given in the respective claim petitions. 4. All the claim petitions were resisted by the insurer-appellant and the owner Vijay Kumar Mehta, by way of filing separate replies, while the alleged driver of the offending Tribunal and was proceeded ex-parte. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following common issues were settled by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HP31-3622 by respondent No.2, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation and from whom the petitioner is entitled to? OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR-1&3. 4. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HP31-3622 by respondent No.2, as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation and from whom the petitioner is entitled to? OPP 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, as alleged? OPR-1&3. 4. Whether the respondent No.2 was driving the vehicle which caused accident without any effective and valid driving licence and also in breach of the terms of Insurance policy and the Provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, as alleged? OPR-3 5. Relief.” 6. The claimants, the insurer and the insured/owner have led their evidence. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligent on the said date, resulting into the accident, in which the claimants sustained injuries. While determining issue No.3, the Tribunal has held that the insurer-appellant and the insured/owner have failed to prove that the Claim Petitions were bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and accordingly the said issue was decided in favour of the claimants and against the owner/insured and the insurer that the insurer has failed to prove that the owner/insured has committed any breach and ultimately, saddled the insurer with the liability to indemnify the compensation amount. 8. Feeling aggrieved, only the insurer/appellant has questioned the impugned award by way of these appeals. The insured and the claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus attained finality so far as it relates to them. 9. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the driver, who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, was not having a valid driving licence. Thus, it was submitted that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the insurer with the liability. It was further submitted that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal in Rajinder Kumar’s case is excessive. 10. The core question to be determined in these appeals is – whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with the liability? The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons. 11. The owner/insured has specifically averred in the reply filed to the Claim Petitions that he had engaged the driver, namely, Ajay Kumar, who was competent to drive the vehicle. The answer is in the affirmative for the following reasons. 11. The owner/insured has specifically averred in the reply filed to the Claim Petitions that he had engaged the driver, namely, Ajay Kumar, who was competent to drive the vehicle. The owner/insured also appeared in the witness box and tendered his statement and proved the driving licence of the driver Ajay Kumar. The insurer/appellant has not filed any evidence to the effect that the owner has committed any willful breach. 12. It is beaten law of the land that the insurer has to plead and prove that the owner of the offending vehicle has committed willful breach of the terms contained in the policy and mere plea here and there cannot be a ground for seeking exoneration. 13. 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. 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)......................... (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 main purpose and the concept of fundamental breach to allow defences available to the insured under Section 149 (2) of the Act.” 14. 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. 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 ingh case. If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is 8 :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.” 15. Admittedly, in the present case, the owner had engaged Ajay Kumar as driver and handed over the truck to him. The insurer has not led any evidence to the contrary to prove that the owner had handed over the truck to Hans Raj Kumar handed over the same to Hans Raj under the command of the owner. Therefore, it can safely be held that no breach was committed by the owner. 16. As discussed hereinabove, the driver Hans Raj stands acquitted by the trial Court, while holding that the identity of driver was not established by the prosecution, which also lends support to the case put forth by the insured. 17. Coming to the next argument raised by the learned counsel for the insurer/appellant that the amount, awarded in Claim Petition No.2/2001 (239/2005), filed by Rajinder Kumar, is excessive, I have gone through the averments made in the Claim Petition, wherein it was specifically pleaded that the claimant Rajinder Kumar was Executive Engineer by profession, has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 15%, which has made his life miserable. The disability certificate has been proved on record as Ext.PW-3/A, which clearly shows that the claimant Rajinder Kumar had suffered 15% permanent disability, which has resulted in making his life hell. The disability certificate has been proved on record as Ext.PW-3/A, which clearly shows that the claimant Rajinder Kumar had suffered 15% permanent disability, which has resulted in making his life hell. Certainly, the claimant, due to the accident, has undergone pain and sufferings, and because of the permanent disability suffered by the claimant, he may have to suffer everyday throughout his life. 18. I have gone through the impugned award. The amount awarded under various heads appears to be on the lower side clear that the amount awarded in other two claim petitions is meager. However, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer has not questioned the adequacy of the amount, in those Claim Petitions, during the course of hearing. 20. Having said so, the impugned award is upheld and the appeals are dismissed. 21. The Registry is directed to release the deposited amount in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award. Registry is also directed to place a copy of this judgment on each file.