JUDGMENT : Sanjay Karol, J. Owner of the vehicle has filed the instant appeal. The challenge, limited in nature, revolves around Issue No.4, so framed by the Tribunal, which reads as under: “4. Whether respondent No.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, as alleged? OPR-3.” 2. The vehicle in question met with an accident on 29.9.2005, as a result of which Vikrant (son of the claimants) expired. To settle the claim, driver of the vehicle, handed over a licence (Ex. RW-1/D) to the Insurer. The said licence was found to be fake. These facts are undisputed. 3. Written statement filed by the Driver is conspicuously silent with regard to the driver possessing a valid and effective driving licence. Though the Insurer pleaded the driver of the vehicle not holding a valid and effective driving licence, however, such averments are conspicuously unspecific, in fact vague. 4. It be only observed that on 10.12.2007, driver Dharamvir Singh (RW-1), stepped into the witness box and produced another driving licence (Ex.RW-1/A), which was duly taken on record and exhibited. Reason for not placing the same prior to his deposition stands satisfactorily and reasonably explained by him and the Tribunal accepted the same. It was placed on record in another case pending before Court No.1 at Dehra (H.P.). Significantly, no objection with regard to producing and placing of this licence on record was taken by the Insurer. Emphasis was only to establish that the licence, so handed over by him to the Insurer (Ex. RW-1/D), was fake. Licence (Ex. RW-1/A) stands validly issued and renewed by the Licencing Authority. Nothing to the contrary is on record. 5. Objection taken by the learned counsel for the Insurer that in view of non-compliance of provisions of Order 7 Rules 13 & 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this licence cannot be considered as evidence, is legally unsustainable. It is too late in the day to object for the same. It is a settled position of law that Rules of Procedure are handmaiden of justice. The Tribunal in its wisdom, in exercise of its discretionary power, permitted such document to be taken on record, and allowed it to be proved and exhibited, in accordance with law. 6. It is too late in the day to object for the same. It is a settled position of law that Rules of Procedure are handmaiden of justice. The Tribunal in its wisdom, in exercise of its discretionary power, permitted such document to be taken on record, and allowed it to be proved and exhibited, in accordance with law. 6. Significantly, the Insurer had sufficient occasion to check the veracity of statement of the driver and authenticity of this driving licence, but no such steps were taken in that regard, though it did produce its witness Shri Parimal Chander Ghose (RW- 2), whose statement was recorded on 23.2.2008, after a gap of more than two months. The witness has only proved driving licence (Ex. RW-1/D) to be fake. He is silent with regard to licence (Ex. RW-1/A), as learned counsel for the parties jointly agree that reference thereof, in his testimony is only by way of a typographical mistake and words “Ex. RW-1/A”, in the contextual background, have to be read as “Ex. RW- 1/D”. 7. In view of the aforesaid factual matrix, while relying upon the decisions rendered by this Court in National Insurance Company v. Mast Ram and others, Latest HLJ 2004 (HP) 461; and Sukhbir Singh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Latest HLJ 2006 (HP) 1337, it is contended by Mr. Rakesh Bharti, learned counsel for the appellant, that the Tribunal erred in answering Issue No.4 in favour of the Insurer by fixing the liability on the owner of the vehicle. 8. In Mast Ram (supra), the Court had the occasion to deal with almost an identical situation, where two driving licences, one which was fake, were produced by the driver. The Court returned its findings holding that since one of the licences was fake, as such there was no bar either under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, or relevant Rules framed thereunder, for the driver to possess another licence so issued by the authority under the Act. The Court observed as under: “9. In this behalf, it may also be appropriate to note that it is not the case of the appellant that legal and valid license did not authorize the driver to have driven the vehicle in question at the time of accident. Thus, to say that he was holding two driving licences is not correct. The Court observed as under: “9. In this behalf, it may also be appropriate to note that it is not the case of the appellant that legal and valid license did not authorize the driver to have driven the vehicle in question at the time of accident. Thus, to say that he was holding two driving licences is not correct. For all purposes, licences issued by Licensing Authority, Suni Sub Division, is the only valid and legal authority where under Sher Singh driver could have driven the vehicle in question. On a reading of the provisions of law relied upon by Mr. Sharma, it is manifestly clear that it speaks of driving licence. This presupposes that it has to be a licnese under the provisions of the Act and not something that is not envisaged under the Act. Suffice it to say in this behalf that some other liability under law might have incurred by the person holding the license allegedly issued by the authority of Hyderabad that is proved to be fake in this case. But in the fact of the licence proved to be issued as per law, case of respondent No.1 cannot be rejected.” 9. In the instant case, the driver has discharged the burden by producing and proving the original licence, authenticity of which was never in doubt. 10. That there is breach of condition of policy, relating to holding of a valid driving licence, is the onus which the Insurer has to discharge. Once licence was duly proved by the driver, the burden only rested upon the Insurer to prove the same. 11. In the instant case, the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that the driver suppressed the factum of valid licence and consequently there was breach of condition of the policy. The driver has reasonably explained about the original licence having been placed in the judicial file, pertaining to the criminal proceedings initiated with respect to the very same accident, against the deriver, as this Court stands informed. 12. In this view of the matter, present appeal filed by the owner needs to be allowed. Consequently, findings on Issue No.4 are quashed and set aside. The issue is answered against the Insurer (respondent No.3 before the Tribunal) and the award to the extent it holds the owner liable for the amount is modified accordingly. 12. In this view of the matter, present appeal filed by the owner needs to be allowed. Consequently, findings on Issue No.4 are quashed and set aside. The issue is answered against the Insurer (respondent No.3 before the Tribunal) and the award to the extent it holds the owner liable for the amount is modified accordingly. It stands clarified that the liability to pay the amount is that of the Insurer. Appeal stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any.