JUDGMENT : MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J. 1. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 23rd January, 2014, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Hamirpur, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petition No. 03 of 2011, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.10,69,700/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 3, herein and against the owner and driver-appellants, herein (for short, the “impugned award”), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. The claimants and the insurer have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The insured-owner and driver have questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling them with liability. 4. It is necessary to give a brief summary of the case, the womb of which has given birth to the present appeal. 5. The claimants being victims of the motor vehicular accident, had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in terms of the mandate of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short “the Act”, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. It is averred in the claim petition that driver, namely, Manoj Kumar, had driven the vehicle-Canter bearing registration No. PB-12-G-4649, rashly and negligently, on 03.12.2009, at about 4.30 p.m., at Sector-48, Chandigarh (UT), hit Dr. Gaurav Thakur, who was driving motor-cycle bearing registration No. HP-22-5289, caused injuries to him, who succumbed to the injuries. 6. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 7. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the deceased Shri Gaurav Thakur died on 03.12.2009 because of rash and negligent driving of vehicle, i.e. Canter bearing registration No. PB-20-G-4649 by respondent No. 2, as alleged? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much amount and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? …OPR-3 4. …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so, how much amount and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable, as alleged? …OPR-3 4. Whether the driver of the vehicle in question was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time, if so, its effect? ….OPR-3 5. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy at the relevant time, if so, its effect? ….OPR-3 6. Relief” 8. The claimants examined Dr. Himmat Mohan, (PW-1), Sunny Chadda (PW-3) and Sub Inspector, Nikka Ram (PW-4). Claimant Yoginder Singh appeared in the witness box as PW-2. The insured-owner appeared in the witness box as RW-1 and the driver examined himself as RW-2. The insurer has not led any evidence. 9. The Tribunal after scanning the entire evidence passed the impugned award and the claimants were held entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.10,69,700/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petition till realization of the award amount. The insured-owner and driver were saddled with liability. 10. The dispute in this appeal is-whether the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling the appellants, i.e. owner-insured and owner with liability. Issues No. 1 & 3. 11. The findings returned on these issues are not in dispute. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on these issues are upheld. Issues No. 2, 4 & 5. 12. These issues are inter-linked, hence taken up together. 13. The Tribunal in para-39 of the impugned award has recorded that the driving licence Ext. RW-2/A was renewed in terms of the order made by the District Transport Officer, Mansa. 14. The question is whether-in the given circumstances, it can be said that the Tribunal has rightly saddled the appellants-, i.e. owner-insured and driver with liability. The answer is in the negative for the following reasons. 15. It was for the insurer to prove that the owner of the offending vehicle has committed willful breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and mere plea here and there cannot be a ground for seeking exoneration, as held by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531. 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)......................... (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 available the Act.” 16. 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. 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. 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 Singh 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.” 17. This Court in FAO No. 322 of 2011, titled as IFFCO-TOKIO Gen. Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Joginder Kaur and others, decided on 29.08.2014 and FAO No. 523 of 2007, titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Rikta alias Kritka & others, decided on 19.12.2014, has laid down the same principle. 18. The insured-owner appeared in the witness box as RW-2 and stated that he had examined the driving licence Ext. Insurance Company Limited versus Smt. Joginder Kaur and others, decided on 29.08.2014 and FAO No. 523 of 2007, titled as Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Rikta alias Kritka & others, decided on 19.12.2014, has laid down the same principle. 18. The insured-owner appeared in the witness box as RW-2 and stated that he had examined the driving licence Ext. RW-2/A, which was renewed and had taken all the steps which were required, which is neither rebutted by the insurer nor it has led any evidence to that effect, as discussed herein above. Ext. RW-2/B is the proof of the fact of renewal with effect from 12.11.2007 to 23.12.2013. 19. In the given circumstances, the insurer has not led any evidence and has failed to prove that the owner has committed any breach. 20. Having said so, the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the appellants i.e. owner-insured and driver with liability. The factum of insurance is admitted. Accordingly, it is held that the insurer has to satisfy the award. 21. Viewed thus, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above. The appeal is disposed of. 22. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.