Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice. This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.06.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (II), Shimla, H.P. in case No. 10/10 of 2003, titled Oriental Insurance Company versus Sh. Vinod Kumar Sayog, hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, whereby an Application filed by the insurance company/appellant herein, under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act” came to be dismissed, for short “the impugned order” on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. It appears that claimants had filed claim petition before the Tribunal for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.7 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition which was granted vide judgment and award dated 12.8.2002, made by the said Tribunal, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,04,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants which was questioned by the claimants by the medium of FAO No.509 of 2002 and owner has also filed cross-objection No.222 of 2003. The Appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement was dismissed, however, the cross-objection was disposed of with the direction to the insurer to recover the award amount from the owner, if it is proved by it that the owner has committed willful breach, vide order dated 9th August, 2004. 3. The insurer had satisfied the award and laid motion for recovery of the award amount from the owner before the Tribunal. 4. The parties have not challenged the judgment made by this Court dated 9th August, 2004, passed in FAO No. 509 of 2002 alongwith cross-objections thus, it has attained finality. In view of the judgment dated 9th August, 2004, supra, it was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving license and that the owner has committed willful breach, in terms of Section 149 of the Act read with the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy. The insurer has failed to lead any evidence to the effect that the owner had committed any willful breach. 5. The owner has led evidence to prove that he has exercised due care and caution by examining the license read with the fact that the said driver was in the employment of Chaman Lal before his engagement as driver by the owner. 5. The owner has led evidence to prove that he has exercised due care and caution by examining the license read with the fact that the said driver was in the employment of Chaman Lal before his engagement as driver by the owner. He has examined Chaman Lal, who appeared as RW3 and stated that the driver, namely, Shri Govind Singh is a perfect driver and was driving his vehicle before he was engaged as driver by the owner. 6. The Apex Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217, has laid down that what is expected of a owner of a vehicle is to examine the license and to see whether the driver is competent to drive the vehicle and nothing more can be expected from him, which the owner has proved before the Tribunal in the said application. It is apt to reproduce para 10 of the said judgment herein: “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 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.” 7. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the application. The impugned order is upheld and he appeal is dismissed. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.