JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of the award and judgment dated 17.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal) in file No. 553/Claim, titled Ramesh and another vs Jagdish Singh and others by virtue of which a compensation of Rs. 4,77,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization has been granted to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The only ground on the basis of which the present appeal has been filed is that the driver of the offending vehicle respondent No. 4 herein was not having a valid license as upon verification of the renewal of the driving license No. 274/R/201 dated 11.01.2001 from the Licensing Authority Jammu, it was found that the renewal No. 3836/J with effect from 18.06.2005 to 17.06.2008 stands renewed in the name of some other persons having driving license No. 44613/J. 3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed the claim petition for grant of compensation on account of death of their son, who died in a road traffic accident on 03.12.2007 that was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. JK02 2977. 4. The appellant filed the response to the claim petition and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident occurred on 3.12.2007 near Nagrota by the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. JK-2-2977 being driven in the hands of erring driver in which deceased Akash Mahajan sustained fatal injuries? OPP 2. If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative whether petitioners are entitled to the compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP 3. Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective driving license and plied the vehicle in violation of insurance policy? OPR-3 Relief.” 5. The claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2, besides examining respondent No. 1, also examined PW Rajesh Malhotra in support of their claim. The respondents did not lead any evidence before the learned Tribunal as a result of which the issue No. 3 was decided against the appellant and in favour of the claimants/respondents. OPR-3 Relief.” 5. The claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2, besides examining respondent No. 1, also examined PW Rajesh Malhotra in support of their claim. The respondents did not lead any evidence before the learned Tribunal as a result of which the issue No. 3 was decided against the appellant and in favour of the claimants/respondents. The learned Tribunal after hearing the contesting parties passed the award impugned. 6. Mr. D. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 4 was not having a valid license as such, the appellant cannot be saddled with any liability. 7. Mr. Ankesh Chandel, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the appellant has not led any evidence before the learned Tribunal and as such, the present appeal is misconceived. 8. Heard and perused the record. 9. From the record it is evident that though a specific issue No. 3 was framed with regard to the validity and effectiveness of the driving license of the driver but the appellant did not lead any evidence before the learned Tribunal, as such, appellant could not prove that the driver was not having a valid license and now only the issue that has been raised by the appellant is that the renewal was not valid. 10. It needs to be noted that merely relying upon a certificate that the renewal in the record of Licensing Authority stands in the name of some other persons is not sufficient enough to prove that the renewal is not valid, particularly in view of the fact that the appellant did not lead any evidence before the learned Tribunal with regard to the said fact. The appellant could have summoned the witness from the Licensing Authority in the event the appellant was serious to prove the issue No. 3. The contention of the appellant that there was no valid renewal of the license is akin to a situation where the license of the driver is found to be fake and not mere absence of renewal. 11. The contention of the appellant that there was no valid renewal of the license is akin to a situation where the license of the driver is found to be fake and not mere absence of renewal. 11. Reliance is placed upon decision in case National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , in which three Judge Bench of the Hon?ble Supreme Court elaborately discussed the issue and concluded as under: “(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 sub-section (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. (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. (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. 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. 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. (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.” 12. In Nirmala Kothari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 49 , the Apex Court after relying upon National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Swaran Singh and others (supra) held as under: “9. In Nirmala Kothari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2020) 4 SCC 49 , the Apex Court after relying upon National Insurance Company Ltd. vs Swaran Singh and others (supra) held as under: “9. 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 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru (2003) 3 SCC 338 , 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 wilful breach of the conditions of the policy should be established. The law with this respect has been discussed in detail in PEPSU RTC v. National Insurance Co., (2013) 10 SCC. We may extract the relevant paragraph from the judgment : (PEPSU case “10. 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 case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733]. 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.” 10. 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 onus of proving that the insured did not take adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness of the licence or was guilty of wilful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance lies on the insurer. 12. While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise. If the employer finds the driver to be competent to drive the vehicle and has satisfied himself that the driver has a driving licence there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and the insurance company would be liable under the policy. It would be unreasonable to place such a high onus on the insured to make enquiries with RTOs all over the country to ascertain the veracity of the driving licence. It would be unreasonable to place such a high onus on the insured to make enquiries with RTOs all over the country to ascertain the veracity of the driving licence. However, if the insurance company is able to prove that the owner/insured was aware or had notice that the licence was fake or invalid and still permitted the person to drive, the insurance company would no longer continue to be liable. 13. So far as the instant case is concerned, no evidence was led by the appellant before the learned Tribunal and as such, the plea of the appellant is rejected. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal of the appellant is found to be devoid of any merit, hence the same is dismissed along with connected application. The award of the Tribunal is upheld. The amount, if deposited, shall be released in favour of the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in terms of the award of the Tribunal after proper identification and verification.