JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. (Oral) Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 13th November, 2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(III), Shimla, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’), in MAC Petition No.16-S/2 of 2005/03, titled Kirpa Nand Negi vs. Surinder Kumar and another, (for short the ‘impugned award’), whereby a sum of Rs.2,15,000/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, stands awarded in favour of the claimant (respondent No.1 herein) and the appellant was directed to satisfy the impugned award. 2. It is necessary to give a flash back of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the present appeal. The claimant Kirpa Ram, on 9th May, 2002, was going on Motorcycle bearing No.HP-07-4013 towards Portmore School, Shimla and when he reached near Vikasnagar, a Mahindra Utility bearing No.HP-51-2199, being driven by the driver, namely, Surinder Kumar, rashly and negligently, hit the said motorcycle. As a result, the claimant sustained injuries, was taken to Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, where he remained under treatment as indoor patient till 6th June, 2002. Thus, the claimant having suffered 30% permanent disability, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition. 3. Respondents i.e. the driver/owner and the insurer resisted the Claim Petition. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries as a result of accident with Mahindra Utility Jeep No.HP-51-2199 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by respondent No.1? OPP. 2. Whether the Motor Vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and against the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act and without a valid and effective driving licence? OPR-2 3. Whether the accident in question was occurred because of negligence on the part of the petitioner if so, to what effect? OPR 4. Relief” 5. The Claimant examined as many as six witnesses, in support of his case, while Surinder Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle, stepped into the witness box as RW-1 and Khem Chand, official from the office of Registering and Licensing Authority (Rural), Shimla, was examined as RW-2. 6. OPR 4. Relief” 5. The Claimant examined as many as six witnesses, in support of his case, while Surinder Kumar, driver of the offending vehicle, stepped into the witness box as RW-1 and Khem Chand, official from the office of Registering and Licensing Authority (Rural), Shimla, was examined as RW-2. 6. The Tribunal, after scanning the entire evidence, decided all the issues in favour of the claimant and against the respondents and the claimant was held entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs.2,15,000/-, with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of Claim Petition till the amount is deposited. 7. The findings, recorded by the Tribunal, have attained finality insofar as the insured/owner/driver and the claimant are concerned, since they have opted not to question the same. However, the insurer-appellant has questioned the same by way of filing the present appeal. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have scanned the evidence available on the record. 9. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer has argued that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license, and thus, the owner/insured has committed breach. 10. The argument canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellant is devoid of any force for the reason that Ext.RW-1/A, photocopy of the driving license on the trial Court file, would show that the driver was competent to drive a light motor vehicle and the said license was valid at the time of accident. Registration certificate of the vehicle has been proved on record as RW-1/B, wherein it is mentioned that the unladen weight of the offending vehicle was 1690 kg. Thus, the offending vehicle, in terms of Section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicle Act, which is reproduced hereinbelow, comes under the definition of “light motor vehicle”. “2. ………………… ………………. (21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either or which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms.” 11. The above provision clearly shows that the vehicle, with unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kilograms, would fall within the definition of “light motor vehicle”. 12. The above provision clearly shows that the vehicle, with unladen weight not exceeding 7,500 kilograms, would fall within the definition of “light motor vehicle”. 12. Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle was having driving license to drive vehicles falling within the definition of “light motor vehicle”, thus, was having valid and effective driving licence. 13. 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. 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. 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 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.” 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. 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 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. The next point urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. I have gone through the record. The claimant has proved the disability certificate as Ext.PW-2/B, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the claimant has suffered 30% permanent disability, has undergone pain and suffering and has to suffer throughout. Therefore, I am of the considered view that the compensation, awarded by the Tribunal, is, in no way, on the higher side, rather it is meager. However, the claimant has not challenged the impugned award, the same is reluctantly upheld. 17. In view of the foregoing discussion, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. The Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of the claimant through payees’ account cheque strictly in terms of the impugned award.