JUDGMENT : Janak Raj Kotwal, J. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against judgment and award dated 16-1-2010 rendered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short, the Tribunal) in Claim No. 247, whereby compensation of Rs. 2,10,000/- has been awarded in favour of claimant, herein respondent No.1, on account of personal injuries suffered by him in a road accident involving a maruti car bearing registration No. JK-14A-0480. Liability of paying the compensation has been fastened on the appellant with whom the offending car was insured for 3rd party risk. 2. Heard. I have perused the record. 3. Claimant, who claims to be a practising advocate, was travelling by the offending car from Samba to Jammu. Sukhdev Singh, herein respondent No.3, was driving the car. When the car reached near Transit Camp, Bari Brahmana, Jammu, it dashed against a CRPF truck from behind. Claimant sustained injuries all over his body. He was evacuated to Government Medical College Hospital, Jammu. He suffered 10% permanent disablement. 4. Claimant lodged claim for compensation under section 166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the Act). Learned Tribunal vide impugned judgment and award found that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending car, herein respondent No.3 and awarded compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- in favour of the claimant under following heads : 1 Loss of future income Rs. 60,000/- 2 Medical expenses Rs. 50,000/- 3 Pain and sufferings Rs. 50,000/- 4 Loss of amenities in life Rs. 50,000/- Total Rs. 2,10,000/- 5. The appellant's assail to the impugned judgment and award on two scores, firstly, that it was proved before the learned Tribunal that the driver of the offending car did not possess a driving license as at the time of accident and therefore, there was a breach of a condition of policy of insurance and insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner (insured) of the offending car by satisfying the award and secondly, that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is much on higher side. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Vishnu Gupta, sought to point out that driver of the offending car, who was examined by the appellant as its witness before the learned Tribunal, had admitted in his statement that driving license was obtained by him on 19-9-2008 and therefore, it was proved that he did not possess any driving license as at the date of accident. Mr. Gupta further contended that appellant through the evidence of its legal executive, Deepak Gupta, had proved before the learned Tribunal the policy of insurance (EX.RW-1/DG), which contains a condition that company shall not be liable to indemnify the insured in case vehicle is driven by a person not duly licensed. Mr. Gupta argued that learned Tribunal has ignored this aspect and has erred in foisting liability on the appellant. Mr. Gupta relied upon Sardari & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors. 2008 (2) Supreme 451 : (2008 AIR SCW 2075) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohd. Maqbool Khatana and others, 2014 ACJ 2066 : (2013 AAC 2859 (J&K) Learned counsel argued further that the amount of compensation for pecuniary loss has been awarded by the learned Tribunal without any evidence and the non-pecuniary damages are granted much on higher side. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the award. Their argument was that breach on the part of insured has not been proved inasmuch as there is not even iota of evidence that insured wilfully had handed over the vehicle for driving to a person not possessing driving license. 8. Under Section 149 (2) of the Act insurer can defend its liability to indemnify the insured by taking a plea that there had been a breach of a specified condition of the policy of insurance inter alia a condition excluding driving of the insured vehicle by any person who is not duly licensed. If such a condition is specified in the policy of insurance and breach of this condition by the insured is proved by the insurer, the insurer would be absolved of its liability to indemnify the insured and satisfy the award. It is, however, well-settled that the breach of a policy of insurance must have been committed by the insured, who is party to the contract of insurance between him and the insurer. It is, however, well-settled that the breach of a policy of insurance must have been committed by the insured, who is party to the contract of insurance between him and the insurer. This legal position is evident in the case law relied upon by the appellant (insurer) in this case. In Sardari's case (2008 AIR SCW 2075) (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the breach of a condition of contract is ex facie apparent from the records the Court will not fasten the liability on the insurance company. Supreme Court in this case has referred with approval to earlier judgments of the Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gian Chand, (1997) 7 SCC 558 : ( AIR 1997 SC 3824 ) where it was held that 'when the insured had handed over the vehicle for being driven by an unlicensed driver, the insurance company would get exonerated from its liability to meet the claims of the third party, who might have suffered on account of vehicular accident caused by such unlicensed driver...' ? and in Swaran Singh's case (2004) 3 SCC 297 : ( AIR 2004 SC 1531 ) where it has been held that 'where the driver of the vehicle, admittedly, did not hold any license and the same was allowed consciously to be driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person, the insurer is entitled to succeed in its defence and avoid liability' ?. 9. The principle of law laid down in Mohd. Maqbool Khatana (2013 AAC 2859 (J & K) (supra) is no different. Learned single Bench of this Court has reiterated that the insurance company is to escape liability to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle on account of the accident involving the insured vehicle where the driver employed by the insured or owner was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. Learned Single Bench has further held that the insured would be guilty of breach of insurance contract, in the event he hands over his vehicle to a person not authorised to drive the vehicle and in that case insurance company cannot be held under a duty to prove that the owner of the vehicle was having knowledge as regards the defect in the driving license or that the driving license held by the driver of the offending vehicle was ineffective and invalid. 10. The essence of the principle of law in this regard is that the breach must have been committed by the insured person, that is, if the insured hands over his vehicle to a person who is not duly licensed to drive a vehicle, the insurer would not be liable to satisfy a claim arising out of such a accident. 11. In the case on hand, the accident had occurred on 26-5-2007. The driver of the vehicle, Sukhdev Singh, herein respondent No.3, in his deposition as insurer's witness before the learned Tribunal has clearly stated that driving license was issued in his favour on 19-9-2008, which authorizes him to drive a light motor vehicle and a motor cycle. He produced a copy of his driving license (Mark-A) showing that the same was issued on 19-9-2008. He did not state before the Tribunal that he possessed any driving license as on the date of accident. The statement of respondent No.3 is sufficient to prove that he did not possess any driving license as at the time of the accident. Learned Tribunal, however, did not accord much importance to this aspect of the matter and fastened liability on the insurance company only for the reason that vehicle was insured by it. 12. Admitted case of both sides is that the offending vehicle as at the time of accident was registered in the name of Sanjay Mehta, herein respondent No.2 who was respondent No.2 before the learned Tribunal too. Admittedly respondent No. 2 was the person insured under the policy. The question, thus, arising is whether the appellant company is not liable to satisfy the award as vehicle at the relevant time was being driven by a person who did not possess any driving license? 13. The deposition of the driver of the vehicle before the Tribunal would show that neither he was engaged as driver by the insured (owner) nor was the vehicle handed over to him by the insured. This is evident from the statement of the claimant also. According to the claimant the offending vehicle was provided to him by his client, the owner of 'Jamkash Motors'. The driver in his statement has stated that he had taken the claimant to a Court at Samba for attending a case of his company, namely, 'Jamkash Vehicleads'. This is evident from the statement of the claimant also. According to the claimant the offending vehicle was provided to him by his client, the owner of 'Jamkash Motors'. The driver in his statement has stated that he had taken the claimant to a Court at Samba for attending a case of his company, namely, 'Jamkash Vehicleads'. He has further stated that the offending vehicle is owned by the 'Jamkash Vehicleads' and he had taken the claimant in this vehicle under the direction of the owner. 14. What is, thus, clear is that the driver, who caused the accident, was not engaged by the insured (owner). On the other hand, he was engaged by a third person, namely, 'Jamkash Vehicleads'. RW-Deepak Gupta, who is an officer of the company, in his deposition before the Tribunal has revealed that the offending vehicle was sold by the registered owner (insured) to Jamkash Vehicleads on 14-6-2007. He also produced a copy of Sale Deed in this regard. This aspect of the case, however, was neither raised in the objections filed by the insurer/appellant before the Tribunal nor has been proved by the appellant by leading legal evidence so its effect on the liability of the appellant would not arise for consideration. The simple defence taken by the appellant in its objections before the learned Tribunal and in this appeal is that there had been a breach of policy of insurance as the driver of the offending vehicle at the relevant time was not holding a valid and effective driving license. This defence, however, fails as no breach of the condition of the policy of insurance by the insured has been proved. Insurer cannot escape liability merely by proving that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess driving licence as it is required to prove also that such a driver was wilfully and consciously engaged by the insured. 15. The other ground relates to quantum of compensation. It was argued by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, that the learned Tribunal has assumed Rs.10,000/- as claimant's monthly income without any evidence and compensation for medical expenses has been awarded without any evidence and compensation for pain and sufferings and loss of amenities has been awarded on the higher side. 16. It was argued by Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, that the learned Tribunal has assumed Rs.10,000/- as claimant's monthly income without any evidence and compensation for medical expenses has been awarded without any evidence and compensation for pain and sufferings and loss of amenities has been awarded on the higher side. 16. On analysing the evidence, I find no substance in the contention that income of the claimant has been taken on the higher side or the compensation on account of future loss of income is on higher side. Compensation for medical treatment, however, has been awarded beyond and contrary to the evidence as bills valuing Rs. 22,380/- only were produced by the claimant to which only a nominal addition towards cost of attendance could have been made. Having regard to the nature of the injury and extent of disability, the compensation for pain and sufferings and loss of amenities also is on the higher side and deserves scaling down. 17. Viewed thus, this appeal is partially allowed by reducing compensation for medical expenses, pain and sufferings and loss of amenities from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- each. The amount of compensation is, thus, reduced from Rs. 2,10,000/- to Rs. 1,50,000/-. Other conditions shall prevail. 18. The award amount, if deposited in this Court, be released in favour of the claimant, subject to above modification and excess amount be remitted back to the depositor. 19. Record of the Tribunal be remitted back along with a copy of this judgment.