JUDGMENT : This appeal arises out of Judgment/Award dated 27.02.2013, passed by District Judge-II-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur in Compensation Case No. 71 of 2010, whereby and whereunder claim application filed by the claimants has been allowed and Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation of Rs.18,94,605/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand, Six Hundred and five only) to the claimants after adjusting the ad interim compensation of Rs.50,000/-with an interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of admission of the case to till the date of payment to the claimants within two months from the date of this order. 2. The facts of the case as per the claim application is that One Gurcharan Singh lodged a statement on 09.03.2010 stating therein that his brother late Darshan Singh aged about 56 years was working in I.R.L. Company, Surda Mines, as Manager. On 21.02.2010 at about 5:30 am, he was going to his duty on his Scooter bearing No. BR-16 C 0933, when he reached near Lokesra College, Media Village an unknown vehicle being driven rashly and negligently at high speed by its driver dashed his brother due to which he fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to Surda Dispensary and thereafter, referred to Moubhandar Works Hospital from where he was referred to T.M.H. He was admitted in T.M.H. on 21.02.2010 at 8:15 and he expired on 08.03.2010 at 17:20. On this complaint, FIR bearing No. 21/2010 was registered at P.S. Musbani on 17.03.2010 for the offence u/S 379/304 IPC against unknown. After completion of investigation chargesheet has been filed against the driver of Hyva Dumper bearing Registration No. NL 05D 5376, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The claimant in their claim application narrated the aforesaid facts on the basis of FIR and chargesheet. The claimants also stated that the accident took place due to rash and negligent and uncared driving by the driver of the offending vehicle bearing No.NL 05D 5376. It has also been stated in the petition that deceased was 58 years of age at the time of his death. He was a energetic person. He was a Mining Engineer and was working as Manager (Mines) at India Resource Limited and he was getting Rs. 25,000/-per month and in the month of March, 2010 his annual increment was due. It has also been stated in the petition that deceased was 58 years of age at the time of his death. He was a energetic person. He was a Mining Engineer and was working as Manager (Mines) at India Resource Limited and he was getting Rs. 25,000/-per month and in the month of March, 2010 his annual increment was due. It has also been stated that the deceased has left behind him his wife aged about 52 years and two unmarried daughters aged about 26 years and 22 years. The claimants claimed Rs.19,40,000/-as compensation. Thereafter, notices were sent to the Opposite parties, and OP No.1 appeared on 27.01.2011, but did not appear thereafter, however, he was debarred later on. 3. Insurance Company-appellant (herein) appeared and filed its show-cause on 15.10.2011 alleging therein, the claimants have no cause of action or right to claim the compensation and the compensation case is not maintainable. O.P. No. 1 did not admit the age of the deceased as 58 years and this fact was also not admitted that at the time of accident, deceased was earning Rs. 25,000/-per month as service. O.P. No.2 stated that claim is highly inflated and exaggerated. O.P. No. 2 also stated that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Scooter by the deceased himself. O.P. No.2 in para 13 stated that the driver of the offending vehicle No. NL 05 D 5376 was not holding effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. He also stated that the owner of the offending Vehicle No. NL 05 D 5376 has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. He also submits that deceased also did not have any valid driving licence. O.P. No.2-appellant in para 8 admitted that the Policy No. 2010-V0613219 FCV and policy was valid from 21.02.2010 to 20.02.2011. 4. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, framed following issues. (I) Whether the application preferred by applicant is maintainable in law as well as on point of fact? (II) Whether the applicants got any cause of action for this application ? 4. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, framed following issues. (I) Whether the application preferred by applicant is maintainable in law as well as on point of fact? (II) Whether the applicants got any cause of action for this application ? (III) Whether the deceased Darshan Singh son of Late Balwant Singh died due to an Road Accident caused by the vehicle bearing Registration No. NL 05D/5367 driven by the driver in rash and negligent manner / (IV) Whether the vehicle bearing Registration No. NL 05D/5376 was duly insured at the time of accident with Future Generali India Insurance Company Limited and the accident took place within the validity period of the Insurance Policy ? (V) Whether the claim of the applicant is genuine as per the provision of law ? (VI) Whether is applicant entitled for other relief or reliefs ? 5. After examining records of the case, learned Tribunal discussed the issues in details and claim application filed by the claimants has been allowed and and Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation of Rs.18,94,605/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand, Six Hundred and five only) to the claimants after adjusting the ad interim compensation of Rs.50,000/-with an interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of admission of the case to till the date of payment to the claimants within two months from the date of this order and also held that the Insurer has not proved that the driver of the vehicle had no licence to drive the truck. Since the offending vehicle was insured with O.P. No.2 –appellant and as such O.P. No.2-appellant is liable to indemnify this amount of the claimants. 6. Mr. A.K. Das assisted by Mrs. Swati Salini, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company has assailed the impugned Judgment mainly on the ground that learned Tribunal has failed to consider that the driver of the insured vehicle did not have a valid driving licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle and therefore, there being a breach of the policy and the Insurance Company cannot be called upon to pay the compensation. Learned counsel further argues that though he was having a valid driving licence to drive LMV but he was driving a HMV, therefore, it cannot be said that he was having a valid driving licence and there is clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and as such, in no way Insurance Company is liable to indemnify to claim amount. Learned counsel further argues that the deceased also did not have a valid driving licence and as such, this appeal may be allowed by setting aside impugned Judgment and Award. Learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhuwan Singh Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr., reported in (2009) 5 SCC 136 . Learned draws the attention of this Court towards Para 23 of the said judgment, which reads as under : “23. The question as to whether the appellant was holding a valid licence or not was within his knowledge. The driver was to show that he held licence in respect of the vehicle for which he had filed an application. Filing of an application and grant thereof would therefore are prerequisite for holding a valid and effective licence. As on 05.01.2001 the appellant was not duly licensed as his learner’s licence expired on 22.12.2000. He filed an application for grant of licence much later. The Insurance Company, therefore, in our opinion was not bound to reimburse him in terms of the contract of insurance.” 7. Mr. Atanu Banerjee assisted by Mr. Kaustav Panda, learned counsel and Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award/judgment passed by the learned Tribunal as nowhere it has been proved that neither any plea has been taken by the Insurance Company regarding licence of driver of offending vehicle even it was stated that driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid licence at the time of accident, as submitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance is not correct as no evidence has been produced on record by them. Learned counsel further argues that they have brought on record that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving licence to drive HMV, which was effective from 01.09.1998 and renewed from time to time and as such, the plea of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company-appellant is demolished in view of the licence brought on record. In the instant case, awarded amount may be directed to be released in favour of the claimants in the interest of justice. 8. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the records. This Court is of the considered opinion that no interference is warranted in the impugned award. The only ground for assailing the correctness of the award by the Insurance Company is that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence, the said argument is demolished on the grounds that 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, but the same has not been proved and there is no violation on the terms and conditions of the insurance. The insurer has not proved the driver of the vehicle had no licence to drive the HMV whereas it has been brought on record by the respondents that the driver was having a valid driving licence of HMV also. Since the offending vehicle was insured with appellant-Insurance Company, rightly the tribunal has held that O.P. No.2-appellant/Insurance Company is liable to indemnify claim amount to the claimants. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarn Singh, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 has held which reads as under : “110 (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. 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 duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.” 10. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kamal Mangalal Vayani & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 488 has held that Insurer trying to prove that vehicle did not have valid permit on a date prior to date of accident. Once a comprehensive insurance policy is admitted, onus of proving any breach of insurance conditions, held, is on insurer and not claimants. Said onus requires insurer to prove that owner had no valid licence on the date of accident, which was not done, therefore, insurer failed to discharge its onus. 11. In the instant case also the insurer failed to discharge its onus. The learned Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation of Rs.18,94,605/-(Rupees Eighteen Lakhs Ninety Four Thousand, Six Hundred and five only) to the claimants after adjusting the ad interim compensation of Rs.50,000/-with an interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of admission of the case to till the date of payment to the claimants within two months from the date of this order and also held that the Insurer has not proved that the driver of the vehicle had no licence to drive the truck. Since the offending vehicle was insured with O.P. No.2 –appellant and as such O.P. No.2-appellant is liable to indemnify claim amount to the claimants. It appears from the records that the award/judgment was passed in the year, 2013 and appeal was also filed by the Insurance Company in the year, 2013 itself but no stay was ever granted. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed to make the payment as per terms and conditions of the Award/judgment, within a period of eight weeks’. Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw statutory amount deposited at the time of filing instant appeal. 12. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Insurance Company is directed to make the payment as per terms and conditions of the Award/judgment, within a period of eight weeks’. Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw statutory amount deposited at the time of filing instant appeal. 12. Accordingly, appeal stands dismissed. 13. Pending I.A, if any, also stand dismissed. 14. Let the lower court record be returned to the court concerned.