JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Since the controversy regarding the fastening of the liability is to be settled herein between the appellant and the insurer hence, the service upon all the parties is of no relevance. The learned counsel of both the contesting parties herein have agreed that the matter to be heard today itself because the Lower court record has been received. 2. A motor accident claim petition no.109 of 2011 was adjudicated by the learned Judge of the Tribunal on 31.3.2015 vide impugned judgment wherein the liability to pay the compensation worth Rs.16,77,525/- was fastened upon the appellant/petitioner herein. 3. The accident occurred on 18.12.2010 at 8:15 a.m. when Truck No. UK07-CA-1001 was being plied in the hilly roads of Tehri-Garhwal by its driver Shri Vishnu Prasad and as a result of such accident Mr. Prem Das lost his life. The truck was owned by the appellant Shri Mohd. Suhail Khan and the fastening of the liability upon the owner of the vehicle was based on the premise that truck was being driven by a person not having a valid driving licence. So, in the opinion of the learned Tribunal it was held that the terms and conditions of the insurance policy were violated, therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation rather this liability should be satisfied by the owner of the truck itself. 4. Having heard the learned counsels of either party, who both have relied upon the law laid down in the Swaran Singh Case reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 297 (Constitutional Bench) wherein it was held in para 92 that:- Where the driver’s licence is found to be fake 92. It may be true as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that a fake or forged licence is as good as no licence but the question herein, as noticed hereinbefore, is whether the insurer must prove that the owner was guilty of the willful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance. In Lehru case the matter has been considered in some detail. In Lehru case the matter has been considered in some detail. We are in general agreement with the approach of the Bench but we intend to point out that the observations made therein must be understood to have been made in the light of the requirements of the law in terms whereof the insurer is to establish willful breach on the part of the insured and not for the purpose of its disentitlement from raising any defence or for the owners to be absolved from any liability whatsoever. We would be dealing in some detail with this aspect of the matter a little later. 5. It has vehemently been argued by learned counsel of the Insurance Company that the Junior Assistant of the ARTO, Dehradun was examined as DW-2, who has deposed that licence 19C/13 allegedly issued on 17.4.2005, did not find mention in the relevant register of the office because date of issuance 17.4.2005 was the Sunday. I think the statement of this clerk is not reliable for the simple reason that he was deposing in the Court on 19.1.2015 without seeing any English Calendar of ten years back when this licence was got issued on 17.4.2005. He was simply a Junior Assistant and was working in the employment of the ARTO office for only last 4-5 years. I think his credibility is not and the law laid down therein has not been over ruled so far by another Constitutional Bench of bigger strength. acceptable to this Court and may be got impeached at the hands of insurer or its man. The owner of the vehicle has also categorically proved that at the time of employment he tested the driving skill of Shri Vishnu Prasad upto 15 to 20 K.m., permitting him to drive such truck and it was found good. As regards, the endorsement of the hills on such licence, there is no substance in the arguments so placed by the Insurance Company because in this regard law is settled even by this Court as have been held in Balbir Singh vs. Smt. Shobha Kashyap & another reported in 2008 (1) UD page 65 and this judgment of the coordinate Bench of this Court was based on many other judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned counsel of the Insurance Company has placed reliance upon the precedent of United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sujata Arora reported in 2013(3) TAC page 29 but I think in presence of the Constitutional Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court itself (National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh & others reported in 2004(3) Supreme Court page 297). 6. In view of what has been set forth above, I allow this appeal and do away with the liability fastened on the appellant/owner of the truck and shift it to the insurer/insurance company. 7. Rs.25,000/- compulsory statutory deposit, which has been made by the appellant, shall be returned to him along with the interest accrued thereon. 8. LCR be sent back.