JUDGMENT 1. The Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (MAC), Srinagar, whereunder Appellant-Insurance Company, has been directed to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- with 6% interest to the claimant, is called in question in this Appeal on the primary ground that on the date of accident, license of the driver of the offending vehicle was not renewed. 2. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that it was the owner/insured, who, in the facts of this case, ought to have been saddled with the responsibility of compensating the victim for the reason that the driving license of the driver of the ill fated vehicle was not renewed in accordance with law. Learned counsel, in support of his contention, referred to and relied upon judgements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2009 SC 208 , AIR 2009 SC 210 & 2007 ACJ 1067 . 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in order to absolve itself of the responsibility of payment of Award amount to the insured, the Appellant -- Insurance Company, was required to prove before the learned MACT that there was willful breach of the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy on the part of insured/owner of the vehicle. He further submitted that the Insurance Company has not proved the willful breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle as such it is the Appellant -- Insurance Company who is to pay the Award amount to the insured. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to arid relied upon judgements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 , (2003) 3 SCC 338 , besides judgement passed by this Court in CIMA 113/2012 dated 28th March, 2014. 5. On 16th May, 2009, the claimant -- Ghulam Mohammad Mir S/O Mohammad Ramzan Mir R/O Ikhrajpora, Srinagar, while plying his Auto bearing Registration No. JKO13/4823 near Naz Crossing, was hit by a Tata Sumo bearing Registration No.JK01H/4568, which was being driven rashly by its driver, sustained multiple fracture injuries. 6. Case F.I.R No. 58/2009 was registered in the concerned Police Station for commission of offence u/s 279/337 RPC. 7. The claimant -- injured person, filed claim petition before MACT, which ultimately resulted in passing of Award in his favour. 8. 6. Case F.I.R No. 58/2009 was registered in the concerned Police Station for commission of offence u/s 279/337 RPC. 7. The claimant -- injured person, filed claim petition before MACT, which ultimately resulted in passing of Award in his favour. 8. Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short Act of 1988), ordains that it is the duty of insured to satisfy the judgement and award against the person injured in respect of 3rd party risks. The insurer, however, in terms of sub section (2) of section 149 of the Act of 1988 is entitled to defend the action on the grounds mentioned in clauses (a) to (d). One of the ground to defend and resist the claim of the claimant by the insurer is that there has been breach of specified condition of the Insurance Policy. 9. In order to avoid its liability and to raise the defense that the Insurer is not liable to pay compensation, it has to be proved by not only pleadings but also by leading evidence to the satisfaction of MACT that the insured/owner of the vehicle has committed breach of the conditions of the Insurance Policy. In order to succeed in defense, the Insurer has to prove that the breach on the part of owner/insured has been willful. 10. In the facts of this case, it is not proved that the breach on the part of the insured has been willful. No such issue has been framed nor any evidence is lead to prove that there has been willful breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle. In absence of proper pleadings and there being no evidence to prove willful breach on the part of the insured/owner of the offending vehicle, the Award, impugned in this Appeal, cannot be interfered with. 11. For the above stated reasons, this Appeal is held to be meritless and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected IAs. Appeal dismissed