JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J. Heard Sri Vishwa Ratna Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the caveator-respondent nos.4 to 7 and perused the material brought on record. 2. This First Appeal From Order has been directed against part of the award dated 12.12.2017 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.16/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar, in MACP No.1094 of 2010, Km. Anjali Sharma and others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others whereby the appellant has been fastened with 30% responsibility out of the overall compensation (amount) to the tune of Rs.1,50,600/- 3. Crux consideration before this Court is that the responsibility on the appellant was fixed in the event of absence of valid and effective driving licence of the driver of the vehicle i.e. Truck U.P. 78 AT 2863. In this regard, specific issue was framed by the Tribunal as issue no.9 which was deliberated and discussed by the Tribunal and the adverse finding was recorded against the appellant holding that the driver of the aforesaid truck was not possessing valid and effective driving licence, consequently on account of the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the owner-appellant was required to pay 30% amount out of the total compensation amount to the extent mentioned above. 4. During course of the argument, this Court raised specific query to the learned counsel for the appellant about valid and effective driving licence of his driver whether he was possessing a valid and effective licence on the date and time of the accident whereupon a bold reply was given that no doubt, the driver was not possessing valid driving licence but he detailed the background in which he employed the driver. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted next that at the time of employment of his driver, a general enquiry was made from driver whereupon the driver told that he was possessing valid and effective driving licence which gave the appellant impression that the driver was duly licensed, therefore, his belief cannot be tainted with malafide intention. 6. However, in support of his claim, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sohan Lal Passi Vs. 6. However, in support of his claim, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sohan Lal Passi Vs. P. Sesh Reddy and others report in AIR 1996 SC 2627 and submitted that humanitarian approach ought to have been taken/adopted by the Tribunal concerned. The Tribunal ought to have seen bonafides of the appellant and would have fastened liability in this case on the Insurance Company or the driver but not on the owner of the vehicle in question. 7. Learned counsel for the caveator-respondents has vehemently replied to the aforesaid contention by submitting that the law is well settled by virtue of Section 149(2)b(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act that a person who is not driving the vehicle with valid and effective driving licence will be treated to have violated the terms and conditions of the Act as well as the insurance policy. That way, there is statutory breach and plethora of citations are there which indicate that liability to pay in such cases would ultimately be fastened on the owner of the vehicle apart from the driver. 8. Also considered the submissions. 9. After considering the entirety of the case and traversing the entire impugned award, it transpires that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue no.9 is flawless and innocuous, the same is virtually admitted to the appellant. 10. In this view of the matter, 30% liability placed on the appellant is to be borne by him and the case law cited by the appellant is not squarely applicable in the present case, for the reason that finding qua absence of the valid and effective licence is against the present appellant for which he alone is responsible. 11. Consequently, the instant appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. 12. However, the amount (Rs.25,000/-) deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the Tribunal concerned which shall be adjusted towards payment of compensation among the claimants in the ratio fixed by it.