JUDGMENT : R Raghunandan Rao, J. The present appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam in M.O.P.No.423 of 2009, dated 02.05.2011. 2. The 1st respondent, who is the petitioner in MOP., filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation on account of the injuries received by her in an accident that occurred on 06.09.2008, at about 5.15 pm., on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the passenger auto bearing No.AP-31W-7406 because of collision between the auto and another motor cycle bearing No.AP-31AA-6805. 3. xxx xxx xxx 4. The Insurance Company filed a counter disputing the rash and negligent driving of the driver, contending that the claim of compensation is exaggerated and the auto, which was the vehicle involved in the accident, was driven by a person who did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive such an auto. 5. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after a trial held against the appellant on all these issues and awarded a sum of Rs.63,000/- together with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. Aggrieved by this award the Insurance Company is now in appeal. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant essentially contended that the driver of the vehicle only had a non-transport licence to drive light motor vehicle, and as such it would have to be held that there was violation of the conditions of insurance policy and the Insurance Company would not be liable to pay any compensation. 7. The question of the effect of a driver possessing a non-transport licence to drive a light motor vehicle, which is involved in an accident, had earlier come up before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh, (2004) ACJ 1 SC. In the said judgment the Apex Court had held that a technical breach concerning the driving licence would not absolve the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had relied on this judgment apart from the other judgments cited in its judgment. 8. In the said judgment the Apex Court had held that a technical breach concerning the driving licence would not absolve the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had relied on this judgment apart from the other judgments cited in its judgment. 8. It appears that a similar issue had come up before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of C. Vasudevan v. Lakshmi and others in C.M.A.No.1404 of 2016, which was disposed of on 21.06.2017 wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Madras noticed that the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh's case (noted supra) had been followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal (Appeal (civil) 5825 of 2006). 9. The ratio laid down in Swaran Singh's case (supra) as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited, mentioned above, is that the breach of policy condition by the insured has to be proved by the insurer in order to be absolved of the liability. For this purpose, mere absence or production of fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third party. In order to absolve the liability, the insurer must not only establish the breach of insurance policy terms but also show that the insurer was a party to such breach and was fully aware of the said breach of the terms of the policy. In the absence of proof of both these limbs, the Insurance Company cannot claim to be absolved from the liability to pay compensation. 10. In the present case, the Insurance Company was only able to show that there was a technical breach of the driver not possessing the appropriate licence. However, the second limb of demonstrating that the insurer/owner of the vehicle was fully aware of these facts and that he had permitted such violation of the Insurance policy such as the driver not possessing appropriate licence has not been demonstrated or proved. 11. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award and as such the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 11. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the award and as such the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.