JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been filed with a delay of 151 days. The delay has been duly explained by the appellant stating that the same has been occasioned on account of obtaining the documents and also on account of on ongoing Pandemic of Covid 19. The delay has been explained satisfactorily. The delay is condoned. 2. National Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow (Appellant) is in appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.1.2020 passed in Claim Petition No.805/2015 which was filed by the respondents, who are legal heirs of the deceased, and the claim has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to pay Rs.4,73,200/-along with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum to the opposite parties. 3. The award has been assailed primarily on the ground that driver of the motorcycle was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of the incident, therefore, Appellant Insurance company is liable to be absolved of its liability to indemnify the deceased. 4. As per undisputed facts of the case, the said incident took place on 15.10.2015 when the deceased Smt. Rajrani alias Ganga Dei was returning from the temple to her house and was walking along village kachchi road when at around 7 p.m, the offending motorcycle bearing No. UP 32 GF 2868 being driven by Sarvesh Kumar Verma who was driving on the wrong side, hit the deceased Smt. Rajrani, who was severely injured and was admitted in Galaxy Hospital where she succumbed to her injuries and died. At the time of the incident the deceased was 45 years old and was earning about Rs.6000/-per month by selling vegetables. 5. Sarvesh Kumar Verma, opposite party No.7 was driver of the motorcycle. By means of the present appeal only solitary point which has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant is that the finding returned by the Tribunal with regard to the validity of the driving license No.RA 2646/UNO issued to respondent No.7 is incorrect and perverse and is liable to be set aside. 6. By means of the present appeal only solitary point which has been urged by learned counsel for the appellant is that the finding returned by the Tribunal with regard to the validity of the driving license No.RA 2646/UNO issued to respondent No.7 is incorrect and perverse and is liable to be set aside. 6. The Tribunal has held that the license held by the driver was valid from 30.5.2008 to 29.5.2028 and respondent No.7 had also produced information obtained under Right to Information Act before the Tribunal, on the basis of which, the Tribunal concluded that the driving license of Sarvesh Kumar Verma was valid and effective on the date of alleged occurrence. 7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that as per the information acquired by the insurance company from its inspector, who conducted the investigation and submitted an inspection report, the said license of Sarvesh Kumar Verma could not be verified. The appellants are solely relying upon this investigation report and have pleaded and vehemently urged that the license of Sarvesh Kumar Verma was invalid and, therefore, insurance company does not have any liability towards the heirs of the deceased. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant at the admission stage and have perused the judgment under appeal. 9. The said issue as raised by the appellant has been dealt with by the Tribunal at issue No.2. Before the Tribunal it was contended by the insurance company that the license produced by Sarvesh Kumar Verma was not valid and the Regional Transport Officer has not issued the said license. The entire contention of the Insurance company was based on the inspection report of Sandeep Kumar Gaur who is stated to have conducted an enquiry and also visited the office of the Regional Transport Officer to verify the driving license. He has stated that the license could not be verified as the dealing clerk after perusing the record informed him orally that the said license is not in their record but refused to give anything in writing. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 submitted a copy of license before the Tribunal and also produced information in evidence obtained under Right to Information Act which was marked as exhibit C-30. 11. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 submitted a copy of license before the Tribunal and also produced information in evidence obtained under Right to Information Act which was marked as exhibit C-30. 11. A perusal of the reply obtained under Right to Information Act provided by the Regional Transport Officer with regard to the said driving license, clearly indicates that the license was valid and a copy of same was annexed with the said reply. It has been clearly recorded by the Tribunal that the insurance company did not file any objection to the application seeking information under Right to Information Act filed by Sarvesh Kumar Verma with regard to driving license. He also submits that the said Sarvesh Kumar Verma who was driving the vehicle on the fateful day was in possession of the aforesaid driving license on the date of the incident. 12. The appellant Insurance Company by means of this appeal seeks setting aside of the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to the driving license of respondent no. 7 after holding the same to be perverse, and also that sufficient opportunity was not given to them to prove that the said license was fake. 13. Considering the aforesaid factual aspects the Tribunal returned a finding that Sarvesh Kumar Verma was holder of a valid and effective license on the date of the incident. 14. A perusal of the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal clearly indicates that the burden of proof was duly discharged by respondent no.7 when he produced before the Tribunal a copy of the driving License, as well as a reply obtained under the Right to Information Act, where the said driving lessons was annexed along with the reply which clearly proved beyond doubt the existence of a valid driving license in favour of respondent no.7. 15. In case the appellant insurance company wanted to prove that the said driving licence was fake, then the onus clearly laid upon the Insurance company to place such material and evidence before the Tribunal so as to enable the Tribunal to take a contrary stand, rather than the one on which the claim has been allowed. 16. In this regard, in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. 16. In this regard, in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swarna Singh, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 a three Judge Bench of Supreme Court has elaborately discussed the issue as under: (i) that the Parliament deliberately used two different expressions 'effective licence' in Section 3 and 'duly licensed' in sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act which are suggestive of the fact that a driver once licensed, unless he is disqualified, would continue to be a duly licensed person for the purpose of Chapter XI of the Act. (ii) Thus, once a person has been duly licensed but has not renewed his licence, the same would not come within the purview of Section 149 and thus would not constitute a statutory defence available to the insurer in terms thereof. Only in the event of lapse of five years from the date of expiry of the licence, such statutory defence may be raised. (iii) Once a certificate of insurance is issued in terms of the provisions of the Act, the insurer has a liability to satisfy an award. It has been pointed that a major departure has been made in the 1988 Act insofar as in terms of Section 96 (2) (b) of the 1939 Act all the statutory defences were available in terms of sub-section (3) thereof provided that the policy conditions other than those prescribed therein had no effect; whereas in the new Act, Section 149 (2) (a) prescribes that the policy is void if it is obtained by nondisclosure of material fact. Section 149 (4) confines to only clause (b) and states that the conditions of policy except as mentioned in clause (b) of sub-section (2) are of no effect and, thus, after the amendment, except in cases which are covered under clause (b) of Section 149, the insurance companies are liable to pay to the third parties. In other words, the right of insurer to avoid the claim of the third party would arise only when the policy is obtained by misrepresentation of material fact and fraud and in no other case. (iv) Sub-section (1) of Section 149 makes it clear that the insurer should pay first to the third parties and recover the same if they are absolved on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (2) thereof. Reliance, in this connection, has been placed on BIG Insurance Co. (iv) Sub-section (1) of Section 149 makes it clear that the insurer should pay first to the third parties and recover the same if they are absolved on any of the grounds specified in sub-section (2) thereof. Reliance, in this connection, has been placed on BIG Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Captain Itbar Singh and Others [ AIR 1959 SC 1331 ] and New India Assurance Company Vs. Kamla & Others [ (2001) 4 SCC 342 ]. (v) The burden to prove the defence raised by the insurers as regard the question as to whether there has been any breach of violation of policy conditions of the insurance policy has been issued or not, would be upon the insurer. (vi) The breach on the part of the insured must be a wilful one being of fundamental condition by the insured himself and the burden of proof, therefore, would be on the insurer. .......... (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) 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 driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in subsection (2)(a)(ii) of section 149, have 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 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. To avoid its liability towards 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. (iv) The insurance companies are, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefor would be on them. (v) The court cannot lay down any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstance 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 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 insured 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 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 proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse of by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of insurer against 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. For the reasons aforementioned, these petitions are dismissed but without any order as to costs." 17. From perusal of the aforesaid judgment it is clear that mere absence, fake or invalid driving license 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 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. 18. It is relevant to consider the judgment of Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos 1999-2000 of 2020 (Nirmala Kothari Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, 2020 (4) SCC 49 ) in which in para 8 and 9 it has been held as under:- "8. Having set forth the facts of the present case, the question of law that arises for consideration is what is the extent of care/diligence expected of the employer/insured while employing a driver? To answer this question, we shall advert to the legal position regarding the liability of the Insurance Company when the driver of the offending vehicle possessed an invalid/fake driving licence. In the case of United India Insurance Co. To answer this question, we shall advert to the legal position regarding the liability of the Insurance Company when the driver of the offending vehicle possessed an invalid/fake driving licence. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Lehru & Ors., (2003) 3 SCC 338 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 641 a two Judge Bench of this court has taken the view that the Insurance Company cannot be permitted to avoid its liability on the ground that the person driving the vehicle at the time of the accident was not duly licenced. It was further held that the willful breach of the conditions of the policy should be established. The law with this respect has been discussed in detail in the case of Pepsu RTC vs. National Insurance Co., (2013) 10 SCC 217 We may extract the relevant paragraph from the Judgment: (Pepsu case, SCC pp. 223-24, para 10) 7 "In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence duly verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh's case (supra). If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the insurance company is not liable for the compensation." 9. While the insurer can certainly take the defence that the licence of the driver of the car at the time of accident was invalid/fake however the 8 onus of proving that the insured did not take adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness of the licence or was guilty of willful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance lies on the insurer. " 19. Considering the aforesaid pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex court it is clearly borne out that the onus of proving that the driving license was fake and invalid lay upon the insurance company. The insurance company was under an obligation to lead sufficient credible evidence before the Tribunal which could show that the diving license off respondent No.7 was fake. A perusal of the impugned judgment would indicate that apart from producing the report obtained by them from their agent, no other evidence was led by the appellant Insurance Company. Even the report only records hearsay evidence of the dealing clerk in the office of the Transport Authority. A perusal of the impugned judgment would indicate that apart from producing the report obtained by them from their agent, no other evidence was led by the appellant Insurance Company. Even the report only records hearsay evidence of the dealing clerk in the office of the Transport Authority. It was open for the insurance company to have applied for and also obtained and verified the driving licence from the Transport Authority, but they failed to do so nor did they place any evidence before the Tribunal to take any contrary view in the matter. 20. The Insurance Company in its overwhelming zeal to avoid payment of compensation has acted in the most irresponsible manner in the present case by firstly not producing any evidence in support of their contention before the Tribunal and secondly persisting with their untenable stand in the present appeal. With regard to issue No.2 the Tribunal has clearly recorded a finding that the appellant insurance company did not oppose or deny the validity of the licence. 21. In exercise of its appellate powers, this Court can certainly look into questions pertaining to perversity of findings recorded by the Tribunal, and only when examining the record which may indicate existence of overwhelming evidence adduced by one party, and recording of a contrary finding of fact by the Tribunal, this Court would have sufficient powers to reverse such a finding. In the present case not an iota of evidence has been led by the appellant so as to give an occasion to this Court to embark on an exercise for re-examination of the evidence with regard to the driving licence of respondent no.7. This Court after examining the entire record of the case as produced by the appellant in the instant appeal, disposes of the same at the admission stage itself as the Court does not find any material or ground to entertain the appeal. 22. In this regard, it would also be relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in Rakesh Kumar Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd., 2016 (17) SCC 219 wherein in paras 19 and 20 it was held as under:- "19. 22. In this regard, it would also be relevant to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of in Rakesh Kumar Vs. United Insurance Company Ltd., 2016 (17) SCC 219 wherein in paras 19 and 20 it was held as under:- "19. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving license at the time of accident and that the Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence to prove otherwise. This finding of the Tribunal, in our view, should not have been set aside by the High Court for the following reasons: 20. First, the driver of the offending vehicle (N.A.-2) proved his driving license (Exhibit R1) in his evidence. Second, when the license was proved, the Insurance Company did not raise any objection about its admissibility or manner of proving. Third, even if any objection had been raised, it would have had no merit because it has come on record that the original driving license was filed by the driver in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First class, Naraingarh in a criminal case arising out of the same accident. Fourth, in any event, once the license was proved by the driver and marked in evidence and without there being any objection by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company had no right to raise any objection about the admissibility and manner of proving of the license at a later stage (See Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors., (2007) 13 SCC 476) and lastly, the Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the driving license (Ex.R1) was either fake or invalid for some reason." 23. Considering the aforesaid judgments the onus clearly lies upon the Insurance Company to prove that driving licensee of Sarvesh Kumar Verma was either fake or invalid. The appellant have failed to discharge the onus by adducing any credible evidence to enable this Court to return a contrary finding. Apart from the report of the investigating officer who seems to have only met the concerned dealing clerk in the office of Regional Transport Officer, who orally told him that the said license was not in his record, no other material has been placed by the appellant so as to return a finding of fact in favour of the appellant. 24. 24. The Tribunal has considered all the evidence, including the evidence adduced by respondent no. 7 with regard to the validity of the driving license and also the information obtained under Right to Information Act from the transport authority which also confirmed the existence of valid and effective driving license, and therefore there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the judgment passed by the Tribunal. 25. The appeal is without merits and is dismissed at the admission stage itself.