JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award, dated 10.04.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C. Petition No. 54-S/2 of 2004, titled as Himachal Road Transport Corporation versus Smt. Harbansi Devi and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 54,325/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization was awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer came to be saddled with liability (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on two grounds, (i) that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a fake licence; and (ii) that the claimant was not entitled to compensation under the head 'loss of earning', are devoid of any force. 3. The appellant-insurer has moved an application, being CMP No. 849 of 2009, in terms of Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC") before this Court seeking permission to produce additional evidence. 4. Much water has flown down from the year 2002 till today. If such application is allowed at this stage, that will amount to defeating the aim, object and purpose of granting the compensation, which is a social Legislation. 5. Having said so, no case for leading additional evidence is made out. Hence, CMP No. 849 of 2009 is dismissed. 6. Now coming to the facts of the case, the owner-insured had engaged the driver after going through the driving licence, which is on the file as Ext. RW-1/C. Then, how can it be said that she has committed breach of the provisions of Section 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the MV Act") read with the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy, not to speak of willful breach. 7. The Tribunal has rightly made discussions on the issue in para 17 of the impugned award, needs no interference in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case titled as National Insurance Co. 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 herein: “105. ..................... (i) ......................... (ii) ........................ 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 herein: “105. ..................... (i) ......................... (ii) ........................ (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (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 the Act.” 8. The Apex Court in another case titled as Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 6505, held that the owner-insured is not supposed to go beyond verification to the effect that the driver was having a valid driving licence and the competence of the driver. It is profitable to reproduce para 10 of the judgment herein: “10. It is profitable to reproduce para 10 of the 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. 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's case (supra). 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.” 9. Now coming to the second ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in awarding Rs. 10,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. Now coming to the second ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in awarding Rs. 10,000/- under the head 'loss of income'. A perusal of the pleadings and the record does disclose that the HRTC was not in a position to play the vehicle for 12 days, meaning thereby, it has suffered loss of income for the said period and the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation under this head. 10. Having said so, the impugned award is well reasoned, needs no interference. 11. Viewed thus, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 12. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque. 13. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.