JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. (Oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 30th June, 2012, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.43 of 2010, titled as Sumitra Devi and others versus Raj Kumar Sharma and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.6,86,000/- stands awarded in favour of the claimants (respondents No.1 to 5 herein), and against the appellant, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition, (for short, the impugned award). Brief facts: 2. On 9th June, 2010, one Mulkh Raj was traveling in a vehicle bearing registration No.JK-02-8349, which was being driven by its driver, namely, Surmi rashly and negligently. The said vehicle met with an accident at Kurali Nallah in District Chamba, H.P., as a result of which Mulkh Raj sustained injuries leading to his immediate death. It was averred that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle to fetch water for laying the lintel of the house of his uncle. Thus, the claimants filed the claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.10.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the Claim petition. 3. During the pendency of the Claim Petition, it appears that the claimants had laid a motion for leave to amend the claim petition in terms of Order 6 Rule 17 Code of Civil Procedure, which was granted and the amended petition was filed. But, inadvertently, the requisite amendment was not carried out in the amended petition and again permission was granted and the amended petition was filed. 4. The insurer, owner/insured and the driver filed replies to the amended petition. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the Tribunal: “1. Whether deceased Mulkh Raj died on 9.6.2010 at about 8.10 PM at Kurali Nali near Belly Dhundiyara Bangla, Tehsil Dalhousie District Chamba because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle no.JK02-8349 by respondent no.2 Surmi as alleged? OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved in the affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR3 4. OPP 2. If issue no.1 is proved in the affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR3 4. Whether the driver of the vehicle in question was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident in question, if so, its effect? OPR3 5. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven at the relevant time against the terms and conditions of Insurance 6. Whether the deceased was traveling in the vehicle in question as gratuitous passenger, if so, it effect? OPR3 7. Whether the petitioners have filed the petition in collusion with respondent no.1 as alleged, if so, its effect? OPR3 8. Relief.” 6. In support of their claim, the claimants have examined PW-1 Dr.Maan Singh, PW-2 Sumitra Devi (one of the claimants), PW-3 Badri Ram, PW-4 Parmod Singh, and PW-5 HC Arup Kumar. Claimants have also placed on record documents PMR Ext.PW-1/A, Affidavits of Sumitra Devi and Badri Ram Exts.PW-2/A & PW-3/A, Salary certificate Ext.PW-4/A, Copy of FIR Ext.PW-5/A, Copy of Pariwar Register Ext.PA and death certificate Ext.PW-PB. Respondents have also placed on record copy of driving licence, copy of R.C., fitness certificate, goods carriage permit and insurance policy as Exts.R.1, R.2, R.3, R.4 and R.5, respectively. It is apt to record herein that the insurer/appellant has not led any evidence. Thus, the evidence led by the claimants has remained un-rebutted. 7. The claimants, the owner/insured and the driver have not questioned the impugned award, has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 8. The insurer has challenged the impugned award on the ground that the owner has committed breach and the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the liability with the appellant-insurer. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the owner has the route permit to ply the offending vehicle in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and he has not obtained the route permit to ply the said vehicle in the State of Himachal Pradesh, where the offending vehicle met with the accident. The next ground of attack was that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 9. The arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer relate to issues No.3 to 7. The next ground of attack was that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 9. The arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer relate to issues No.3 to 7. The onus to prove these issues was on the insurer. However, at the cost of repetition, it may be recorded that the insurer-appellant has not led any evidence. Thus, as per the law of evidence, it has failed to discharge the onus cast on it and accordingly, the Tribunal has rightly decided issues No.3 to 7 in favour of the claimants and against the insurer. 10. According to the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, the question is legal one and without leading any evidence, the insurer can raise these issues. This argument is devoid of any force for the reason that it was for the insurer to have proved, by leading cogent evidence, that the owner had committed willful breach. But there is no iota of evidence on the file which would show that the owner was in breach. Thus, the argument cannot be pressed into service. The insurer has also to plead and prove that the cause of accident is the peculiar geographical condition prevailing in the State of Himachal Pradesh, where, as submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer, the vehicle was being plied, at the time evidence to that effect. Accordingly, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves outright rejection. 11. The insurer has also failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunal below, in the absence of any evidence led by the insurer, has recorded finding under issue No.4 that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. 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. ..................... 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 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 the Act.” 14. There is no dispute about the adequacy of compensation 15. Having said so, the appeal merits dismissal and the granted by the Tribunal same is dismissed. The Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of the claimants strictly in terms of the impugned award.