JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award dated 17.05.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu, H.P. in claim petition No. 20 of 2007, titled Vikas Katoch versus Sanjay Kumar and others, hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal” for short, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,38,000 came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and insurer was saddled with the liability, for short “the impugned award” on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Claimant Vikas Katoch invoked the jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kullu, by the medium of claim petition which was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, for short “the Act” for the grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.15 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 3. The owner, driver and insurer resisted the claim petition and following issues came to be framed. (i) Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident caused on 2.10.2004 near Kala Kendar Kullu due to rash and negligent driving of Maruti Van bearing Reg. No.HP-01-0096 by its driver-respondent No.2?OPP. (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled and from whom? OPP (iii) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-3. (iv) Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of insurance policy at the time of accident ? OPR-3. (v) Whether the petition has been filed ion collusion with the respondents No. 1 and 2. If so its effect? OPR-3. (vi) Relief. 4. Parties led evidence and also placed on record the documents, mention of which is made at Form-A, appended to the impugned award. 5. I have gone through the record and am of the considered view that the claimant has proved by leading oral as well as documentary evidence that the driver had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on 2.10.2004 at Kala Kendar Kullu and caused the accident in which the petitioner-claimant sustained injuries and became permanently disabled. Accordingly, findings on issue No. 1 are upheld. 6. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 to 5. Accordingly, findings on issue No. 1 are upheld. 6. Before I deal with issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 to 5. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving license, has failed to discharge the onus. 7. The perusal of the record reveals that the driver, who was driving a maruti van, which falls within the definition of “light motor Vehicle” in terms of Section 2 (21) of the Act, was having a valid and effective driving license, as per the law laid down by this Court in FAO No. 196 of 2008 titled Sarwan Singh versus Bimla Sharma and others alongwith connected matters decided on 30.5.2014. 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, rightly came to the conclusion that the driver was having an effective and valid driving license. 9. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner has committed willful breach, has failed to discharge the onus in terms of the judgment delivered by the apex Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 217. 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.” 10. The insurer has not led any evidence that there was collusion between the motor cyclist and the driver of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the findings returned on all these issues are upheld. 11. Issue No. 2. The Tribunal has saddled the insurer with the liability for the simple reason that the vehicle was insured and the insurer has to satisfy the third party claim. The Tribunal has discussed how the accident has shattered the physical frame of the claimant and it has also affected his future prospects, future life and also he has become burden on his parents for ever. The Tribunal has made discussion of this fact right from paras 27 to 37 of the impugned award. 12. While going through the impugned award, I am of the considered view that the amount awarded is meager, but unfortunately, the claimant has not questioned the same. Accordingly, the findings returned on issue No. 2 are upheld. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal merits to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed and the impugned award is upheld. 14. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ cheque account. 15. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.