JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 22.5.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Kangra at Dharamshala in MACP No. 4-P/2000, titled Naina Devi and others versus Rikhi Ram and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,01,500/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimants, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. Claimants, insured and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle. Thus, the owner has committed breach and insurer was not liable to satisfy the impugned award. 4. The only dispute in this appeal is whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with the liability. 5. In order to determine the controversy in this appeal, it is necessary to give a brief résumé of relevant facts. It is averred in the claim petition that Suresh Kumar had driven the offending vehicle, i.e., Maruti Van bearing registration No. HPY-1322, rashly and negligently on 16.8.1999, near Dehra, Tehsil Palampur, District Kangra, H.P. and hit the deceased, namely, Shambhu Ram, who was walking on the road side, sustained injuries and succumbed to the same. It is averred that FIR No. 197/99 came to be registered in police Station Palampur. The claimants have sought compensation as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 6. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents and following issues came to be framed. (i) Whether the deceased Shambu Ram died due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle NO. HPY- 1322 by respondent No.2.? OPP (ii) If issue No.1 is proved in the affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP (iii) Whether the respondent No.2/driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR (iv) Whether the vehicle was plied in contravention of the terms and condition of the insurance policy and the petition is not maintainable against the relying respondent? OPR (v) Relief. 7. Claimants have examined the witnesses and insurer has examined only one witness, namely, Vineet Kumar licence Clerk as RW1. 8. OPR (iv) Whether the vehicle was plied in contravention of the terms and condition of the insurance policy and the petition is not maintainable against the relying respondent? OPR (v) Relief. 7. Claimants have examined the witnesses and insurer has examined only one witness, namely, Vineet Kumar licence Clerk as RW1. 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence held that the claimants have proved issue No. 1 and saddled the insurer with the liability. There is no dispute qua issue No. 1. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 1 are upheld. 9. Issues No. 2, 3 and 4 are inter-dependent, thus, I deem it proper to determine all these issues together. 10. The driver and owner, neither have produced the driving licence on the record nor have led any evidence. 11. On the last date of hearing, the learned counsel for the owner and driver was directed to produce the copy of driving licence, failed to do so. 12. The insurer has examined RW1, who has deposed that the driver was having the driving licence to drive a motor cycle which was only valid up to 3.11.1998 and no renewal was granted. Further stated that, in terms of the said licence, the driver was competent to drive motor cycle and no other vehicle. He has categorically stated that the driver was not competent to drive jeep, car and taxi. 13. Having said so, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in holding that the insurer has to satisfy the liability. 14. In the given circumstances, it can be safely held that the owner has committed willful breach and the right of recovery has to be granted to the insurer. 15. Accordingly, issues No. 2, 3 and 4 are decided in favour of the insurer and against the owner and driver and it is held that the insurer has to satisfy the award at the first instance with right of recovery from the owner. 16. Registry is directed to release the amount, in favour of the claimants, strictly, as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s cheque account. 17. The impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove and the appeal is disposed of. 18. Send down the record, forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.