JUDGMENT Sanjay Dhar, J. - The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 30.05.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (for short, 'Tribunal') whereby the claimant-respondent no. 1 has been found entitled to compensation of Rs. 1,89,800/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 2. It appears that on 13.09.2006, respondent no. 1-claimant suffered an accident in which offending vehicle bearing registration no. JK02R-1246 that was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver-respondent no. 3 was involved. The vehicle in question belonged to respondent no. 2. The injured-respondent no. 1 suffered permanent disability to the extent of 32% and she filed a claim petition before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the impugned award was passed in favour of the respondent no. 1 and the liability to satisfy the amount was fastened on the appellant-insurance company. 3. One of the issues framed by the learned Tribunal was relating to the question as to whether the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The learned Tribunal after analyzing the evidence on the said issue, came to the conclusion that the appellant-insurance company has not been able to prove the said issue. 4. The appellant-insurance company has challenged the aforesaid finding of the learned Tribunal on the ground that the insurance company had led evidence by examining the concerned clerk of the Regional Transport Officer, Jammu, who had clearly deposed that the driving licence held by respondent no. 3-driver was fake. According to the appellant, in the face of this evidence, it was not open to the learned Tribunal to hold that there has been no breach of policy condition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have also gone through the record of the Tribunal. 6. Issue no. 3 that was framed by the learned Tribunal is relevant to the context and the same is reproduced as under: 'Whether at the time of accident driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence and drove the vehicle in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy?' 7. The onus of proving the aforesaid issue was upon the appellant-Insurance Company. Accordingly, clerk of Regional Transport Officer, Jammu-Sushil Kumar was produced as witness by the Insurance Company to discharge its burden. The onus of proving the aforesaid issue was upon the appellant-Insurance Company. Accordingly, clerk of Regional Transport Officer, Jammu-Sushil Kumar was produced as witness by the Insurance Company to discharge its burden. In his statement, the witness Sushil Kumar, who happened to be the record keeper of the Regional Transport Officer, Jammu deposed, on the basis of the record, that the driving licence No. 1508/MVD/RTO-J has been issued in the name of Rajan Kumar S/o. Charan Dass and not in the name of respondent no. 3-Sanchit Singh. In his cross-examination, he has stated that the driving licence No. 1508, as per record has not been issued in the name of respondent no. 3-Sanchit Singh. 8. The learned Tribunal discarded the aforesaid statement of the Record Keeper of Regional Transport Office, Jammu by observing that the insurance company has failed to bring on record the licence issued in favour of respondent no. 3-driver and that the record which has been produced pertains to the licence issued in the name of one Rajan Kumar. 9. The record shows that the licence that was produced along with the claim petition before the learned Tribunal during the trial of the case bears the number 1508/MVD/RTO-J and it has been issued in the name of respondent no. 3-Sanchit Singh. The record pertaining to licence No. 1508 was summoned from the RTO's office which revealed that the licence no. 1508 has been issued in the name of Rajan Kumar and not in the name of respondent no. 3-Sanchit Singh. It clearly goes on to show that the licence that was produced on record before the learned Tribunal is fake. Thus, the observation of the learned Tribunal that relevant record has not been produced is not tenable as the same is factually incorrect. 10. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2-owner has submitted that as per the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of 'National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and ors' (2004) 3 SCC 297 , the insurance companies in order to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defences raised in the proceedings but they have also to establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle and that the burden of proof would be on the insurer. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and ors' (2004) 3 SCC 297 , the insurance companies in order to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defences raised in the proceedings but they have also to establish breach on the part of the owner of the vehicle and that the burden of proof would be on the insurer. It has been contended that even if it is assumed that the offending driver was holding a fake licence, the insurance company has not led any evidence to show that the owner had the knowledge of the said fact and that in spite of having the knowledge, he has handed over the control of the vehicle to the offending driver. According to the learned counsel, unless these facts are proved by the insurance company, it cannot be stated that the Insurance Company has discharged its burden particularly when it is not possible for the owner of a vehicle to go on checking the veracity of the driving licence of driver employed by him from different transport offices. 11. In the instant case, it is to be noted the respondent no. 2-Owner as well as respondent no. 3-driver did not contest the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. They were set ex parte. They did not file any written statement nor did they step into the witness box. They also did not lead any evidence. 12. Even though the respondent no. 2-owner has contested the instant appeal but he has not produced any material to show that the offending driver was holding a valid driving licence. The appellant-Insurance Company on the other hand, has lead evidence by producing the record keeper of the Regional Transport Officer concerned, according to whose statement, the driving licence available on record of the claim petition was found to be fake. Once this evidence was brought before the learned Tribunal, the burden of showing that the offending driver was possessing any other genuine driving licence or that the record produced by the Record Keeper does not pertain to the driving licence of the offending driver shifted upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. As already noted, they have not even pleaded that the offending driver was holding a valid driving licence. As already noted, they have not even pleaded that the offending driver was holding a valid driving licence. They have not led any evidence to show that the offending driver was holding a genuine driving licence nor have they placed on record even in the present proceedings any driving licence of the offending driver that could be termed as a 'valid driving licence'. Thus, the respondent no. 2-owner has failed to discharge its burden of proving that the offending driver was holding a valid driving licence. It was incumbent upon him to do so once it was shown by the appellant- insurance company that the driving licence held by the offending driver was fake. 13. The Supreme Court has, in the case of 'Papu and ors vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and anr' 2018 (1) Supreme 137 held that the Insurance Company can be fastened with the liability on the basis of a valid insurance policy only after the basic facts are pleaded and established by the owner of the offending vehicle, that the vehicle was not only duly insured but also that it was driven by an authorized person having a valid driving licence. Without disclosing the name of the driver in the Written Statement or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the copy of the driving licence produced in support was of a person who, in fact, was authorized to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability. It was further observed that the Insurance Company would become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle. 14. Again in the case of 'Singh Ram vs. Nirmala and ors', 2018 ACJ 1264 , the Supreme Court after noticing the facts that the owner had not deposed any evidence and he had produced a licence which was found to be a fake, held that the owner had failed to take reasonable care within the meaning of proposition (VII) of the Swaran Singh's case (supra) because he could not have been unmindful of the facts which were within his knowledge. 15. In view of the foregoing analysis of the law on the subject, it is clear that in the instant case, respondent no. 15. In view of the foregoing analysis of the law on the subject, it is clear that in the instant case, respondent no. 2-owner by not participating in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal has lost chance to rebut the evidence produced by the insurance company which shows that the offending driver was holding a fake driving licence. The appellant-insurance company has therefore, succeeded in proving that the offending driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time. Thus, there has been a breach of policy condition on the part of respondent no. 2-owner in the instant case. Consequently, the learned Tribunal has fallen into error in holding that issue no. 3 as quoted above is not proved. The finding of the learned Tribunal to the aforesaid extent, therefore, deserves to be set aside. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of the learned Tribunal to the extent of the finding recorded on issue no. 3 is set aside and it is held that there has been violation of policy conditions with regard to driving licence on the part of the respondent no. 2-owner and as such he cannot be exonerated of his liability to pay compensation to the claimant. Accordingly, it is directed that the appellant shall pay the awarded sum to the claimant, if not already paid and it shall have a right to recover the same from the respondent nos. 2 and 3 who shall be liable to pay the same to the insurer jointly and severally. 17. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly along with connected application.