JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is by the Owner under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award 15.05.2014 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.) Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, C.G. in Claim Case No. 12/2013, awarding total compensation of Rs.4,33,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization, fastening liability on the owner and driver while exonerating Insurance Company from liability on the ground that at the time of accident driver of vehicle was not having valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their description before the Tribunal. 2. As per averments made in the claim petition, on 28.07.2012, deceased Dushen @ Dushyant Sahu, aged about 32 years, earning Rs.14,500/- per month as Salesman, working in Ms/ Ganga Maiya Tractors & Gulsan Agro Industries, was going with one Chabbi Lal on motorcycle bearing registration no. CG05-L-1273 as a pillion rider from Ambedkar Chowk, Dhamtari towards Tikrapara Chowk. However, on the way non-applicant no.1 by driving the vehicle truck bearing no.CG04-ZC-0890 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the said motorcycle, as a result of which, Dushen @ Dushyant Sahu & Chabbi Lal both suffered grievous injuries. During treatment, deceased- Dushen @ Dushyant Sahu succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. At the time of of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by non-applicant no.2 and insured with non-applicant no.3. 3. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation to the tune of Rs.46,50,000/-, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned above in para 1 of this judgment. 4. 3. On claim petition being filed by the claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation to the tune of Rs.46,50,000/-, the Tribunal considering the evidence led by both the parties passed an award as mentioned above in para 1 of this judgment. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner submits that though he has raised various grounds in the memo of appeal, however, he is not pressing all those grounds and is assailing the award on the sole ground that the Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the Insurance Company/non-applicant No.3 of its liability on the ground that at the time of accident, non-applicant No.1/driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle whereas according to the final report Ex.P-1 and seizure memo Ex.A-9 (driving licence of deceased), it stands proved that non-applicant No.1 was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. The Insurance Company has not adduced any evidence to substantiate the defence that the vehicle in question was being driven by non-applicant No.1 in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. He also submits that the offending vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3 on the date of accident. In these circumstances, the Tribunal ought to have fastened the liability on non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company opposes the contention made by the appellant's counsel and submits that the Tribunal, considering the overall evidence oral and documentary available on record, has rightly exonerated the Insurance Company/non-applicant No.3 of its liability, which needs no interference by this Court. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Swaran Singh, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 laid down parameters/guidelines while deciding the claim application by the Tribunal in clause (iii), (iv) & (vi) of paragraph 110, has held as under:- 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. 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 a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) Insurance companies, 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. (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 the 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 insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act. 8. The same view has further being reiterated in the case of Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited), reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650 , wherein again the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph 6 has held as under:- “6. As per the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , onus is always upon the insurance company to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence and that there was breach of policy conditions. Where the driver did not possess the valid driving licence and there are breach of policy conditions, “pay and recover” can be ordered in case of third-party risks. The Tribunal is required to consider “as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver ... Where the driver did not possess the valid driving licence and there are breach of policy conditions, “pay and recover” can be ordered in case of third-party risks. The Tribunal is required to consider “as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver ... does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case”. 9. In this case, though the Insurance Company has pleaded that on the date of accident, non-applicant no.1 was driving the offending vehicle without having valid and effective licence but no evidence whatsoever has been adduced by Insurance Company to substantiate the said pleading. As per final report Ex.P-1 submitted by Police Station Dhamtari before the Judicial Magistrate Dhamtari, charge sheet has been filed against the driver/non-applicant No.1 for the offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304- A of IPC and no offence was registered against the driver/non-applicant No.1 under Motor Vehicles Act, 1989 for not having a valid and effective licence and as per seizure memo (Ex.A-9), offending vehicle, driving licence of deceased having validity till 21.12.2013, fitness certificate and Insurance Policy having validity from 27.03.2012 to 26.03.2013 were seized which prove that non-applicant No.1/driver was having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. No evidence was adduced by the Insurance Company that driving licence of non-applicant no.1 so seized by the police was not valid and effective on the date of accident. Neither enquiry has been conducted by the Insurance Company to substantiate its pleading nor any offence was registered against the non-applicant No.1 regarding non-holding of valid and effective licence. The Insurance Company has also not adduced any evidence to substantiate the defence that the vehicle in question was being driven by non-applicant No.1 in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Owner, driver and Insurance Company have also not been examined before the Tribunal nor any witnesses have been examined on their behalf. Since the Insurance Company was raising a specific plea regarding breach of policy conditions, the burden lies upon it to prove the same by adducing cogent and reliable evidence but Insurance Company has failed to do so. 10. Owner, driver and Insurance Company have also not been examined before the Tribunal nor any witnesses have been examined on their behalf. Since the Insurance Company was raising a specific plea regarding breach of policy conditions, the burden lies upon it to prove the same by adducing cogent and reliable evidence but Insurance Company has failed to do so. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons and keeping in view the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh & Shamanna (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the Insurance Company has failed to prove the onus that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and that there was any breach of policy conditions. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company/non-applicant No.3 of its liability and fastening the same on non-applicants No. 1 & 2. It is held that non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent.