JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the counsel for the appellant and counsel for the respondents. 2. Respondents are the claimants and the owner of the vehicle. 3. It appears that in the present case, claim application has been made on 27.05.2005 by the claimant on account of death of his son, who has died in a road accident by a Truck bearing registration No.JH-02D-3619 on 27.05.2005. 4. Learned Tribunal, after taking into consideration the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence and other things, has awarded the claim in favour of the claimants to the tune of Rs.3,75,700/- along with 6% interest from the date of filing of the application. 5. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company on the limited point that the Tribunal has recorded the finding being Issue No.III, at para-9, which reads as under:- “Para-9. Issue No. III:- It is admitted fact that the accident took place by Truck bearing No.JH-02D-3619 and according to charge sheet (Ext.2) it was driven by Suryadeo Kumar at the material time and the defendant no.1 has admitted in his W.S. that the driver was Suryadeo Kumar at the material time and he is on bail. He has also attached the driving licence of driver. On perusal of the record, it transpires that Deft. No.1 has filed the Xerox copy of owner book for the said truck and certificate of fitness and permit which is valid till 18.07.2005 and the xerox copy of insurance paper which is valid up mid night of 02.06.05 but he has not filed the D.L. of the driver to show that the driver of the truck has got valid D.L. at the material time. The defendant has not examined any witness on the point therefore, in absence of any evidence oral or documentary on the point I am of the opinion that the deft. No.1 has failed to prove the facts that the driver of Truck No.JH-02D-3619 had a valid and effective D.L. at the time of accident. Because of the fact the pleading made by him in his W.S. must be proved by oral and documentary evidence, but in the present case he has failed to do the same and accordingly I found that the driver of the Truck No. JH-02D-3619 had not got valid and effective D.L. at the time of accident and accordingly, this issue is decided against the defendant no.1. 6. As the Tribunal has returned its finding that the Driver of the vehicle, at the time of accident, was not having a valid license, relying upon para-84 of the judgment reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Swaran Singh and Others, wherein, it has been observed that “We have analysed the relevant provisions of the said Act in terms whereof a motor vehicle must be driven by a person having a driving licence. The owner of a motor vehicle in terms of Section 5 of the Act has a responsibility to see that no vehicle is driven except by a person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Act. In a case, therefore, where the driver of the vehicle, admittedly, did not hold any licence 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. The matter, however, may be different where a disputed question of fact arises as to whether the driver had a valid licence or where the owner of the vehicle committed a breach of the terms of the contract of insurance as also the provisions of the Act by consciously allowing any person to drive a vehicle who did not have a valid driving licence. In a given case, the driver of the vehicle may not have any hand in it at all e.g. a case where an accident takes place owing to a mechanical fault or vis major”, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the liability is of the owner of the vehicle and that has been held by the learned Tribunal also. 7. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that the same judgment- National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has been considered in the recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court being Civil Appeal No.20962 of 2017 {arising out of SLP(C) No.29032 of 2015} decided on 19th January, 2018. 8. After considering the above judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) has been considered in the recent judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court being Civil Appeal No.20962 of 2017 {arising out of SLP(C) No.29032 of 2015} decided on 19th January, 2018. 8. After considering the above judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.20962 of 2017 has finally concluded that in such situation, it is a better course that the Insurance Company should be directed to make payment of the claim amount, but recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law. Paragraphs 16 and 17 of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No.20962 of 2017 are quoted here-in-below:- 16. Further, in paragraph no. 110, the Court observed thus: 110. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions are as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third-party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2)(a)(ii) of Section 149, has 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 the 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 a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. To avoid its liability towards the 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 a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) Insurance companies, 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 where for would be on them. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (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 the 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 insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act. (vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. (viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner’s licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. (ix) The Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the Tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. The said power of the Tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between the insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Section 149(2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears of land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with the proviso there under and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover the amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse to by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of the insurer against the insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims”. 17. In the present case, the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.1) had produced the insurance certificate indicating that the vehicle No.DIL-5955 was comprehensively insured by the respondent No.2 (Insurance Company) for unlimited liability. Applying the dictum in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra), to sub-serve the ends of justice, the insurer (respondent No.2) shall pay the claim amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.1) in accordance with law. 9. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Apex Court, I find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed.