JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 3rd May, 2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I) Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. Petition No. 25- MAC/2 of 2008, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,30,400/- with interest @ 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 & 2 and the insurer-appellant was saddled with liability, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’). 2. The claimants, owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the owner has committed willful breach and the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, thus the Tribunal has fallen in an error. 4. The claimants had filed the claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 5. The respondents resisted the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections. 6. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:- “1. Whether Balwant Singh was rash and negligent in driving motor-cycle HP-17A-1273 and while driving as such, he caused the death of Om Prakash, as alleged? ….OPP 2. In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? ….OPP 3. Whether the driver of the motorcycle HP-17A-273 did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, as alleged? …OPR-3 4. Whether the vehicle in question was being plied in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as alleged? …OPR-3 5. Relief.” 7. The parties led evidence. The Tribunal after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants have proved that driver, namely, Balwant Singh, had driven the offending vehicle, i.e. motor-cycle bearing registration No. HP-17A-1273, rashly and negligently and caused the accident. There is no dispute regarding Issue No. 1. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld. 8. There is no dispute regarding Issue No. 1. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 1 are upheld. 8. Before I deal with Issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with issues No. 3 & 4, which are subject matter of this appeal. 9. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, has not led any evidence. The copy of driving licence is exhibited as Ext. R-1/C on record, which does disclose that the driving licence was valid from 27.2.2007 to 26.2.2012. 10. Learned Counsel for the insurer argued that in terms of Ext. R-X, the driving licence was fake. 11. The argument of the learned Counsel is devoid of any force for the reason that insurer has not proved the report (Ext.R-X). The mere report cannot absolve the insurer from the liability. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner had not taken steps which he was required to take and the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence, has failed to do so. 12. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner has committed willful breach in terms of the mandate of Sections 147 & 149 of the Moror Vehicles Act, for short ‘the Act’ read with the terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy, as held by the Apex Court in 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 below:- “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. 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 defences 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.” 13. The Apex Court in the case titled as Pepsu Road Transport Corporation versus National Insurance Company, reported in (2013) 10 SCC 217 has laid down the same principle. 14. 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. 15. Having said so, it is held that the Tribunal has rightly decided issues No. 3 & 4 against the insurer. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issues No. 3 & 4 are upheld. 16. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 17. 15. Having said so, it is held that the Tribunal has rightly decided issues No. 3 & 4 against the insurer. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issues No. 3 & 4 are upheld. 16. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 17. The Registry is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing the same in their accounts. 18. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal’s file.