JUDGMENT : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard, learned counsel for the parties. 1. The owner of the vehicle is in appeal against the judgment and award dated 19.08.2015 passed by learned District Judge-III cum MACT, Jamshedpur, in Compensation Case No.23 of 2012, in which a finding has been recorded that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, and liability has been fixed upon the Respondent No.1- Oriental Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 2. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant- owner of the offending vehicle that the only document to hold that the driver (Vakil Mahto) was not having a valid driving licence was Exhibit-A, adduced into evidence by the Opp. Party No.2- Insurance Company. Tribunal held that the validity period from 24.07.2001 to 23.07.2004, and there was no further renewal of the driving licence. Ext.5 produced on behalf of the applicant which was the driving licence of the driver, Vakil Mahto, was not accepted as it was the photocopy of the certified copy and the owner had not produced any witness to prove the same. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant- owner of the offending vehicle that the Driving licence was initially granted to driver of the offending vehicle, Vakil Mahto from the year 1989 to the year 1992 and thereafter it was being renewed from time to time. The owner of the vehicle had also appeared before the learned Tribunal and during enquiry, Ext.5 being the driving licence was adduced into evidence by the claimant(s) and the same was marked without objection and it shows the renewal of the same was up to 01.05.2016. Despite this, it was not accepted and not looked into. Photocopy of the certified copy of the driving licence has also annexed with the memo of appeal. 4. It is further argued that even if the breach of insurance policy will arise, if the vehicle was being driving by a person not having any driving licence. Despite this, it was not accepted and not looked into. Photocopy of the certified copy of the driving licence has also annexed with the memo of appeal. 4. It is further argued that even if the breach of insurance policy will arise, if the vehicle was being driving by a person not having any driving licence. But, if the driver had a valid licence and was not renewed at the time of accident, the owner / appellant cannot be held to be liable, in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex court in the judgment reported in 2004(3) SCC 297 at Para-110. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1- Insurance Company has defended the impugned order. It is argued that there is gap in the period of renewal by three years during which the alleged accident took place and at the relevant time, the driver had no valid driving licence. It was for this reason that finding of fact has been recorded by the learned Tribunal that there was breach of condition of the insurance policy. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides and on perusal of materials on record, this Court is of the view that learned Tribunal fell in error by not accepting the photocopy of the driving licence which was adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit, but without objection of the insurance policy. A bare perusal of the Ext.5, it is evident that the Driving licence was renewed up to the year 2016 which was initially issued in the year 1989. Further-more the law is settled that there is initial onus upon the owner of the offending vehicle to verify that the vehicle is driven by a person having a valid driving licence. Once that part is proved and even if there is lapse of period of driving licence, it cannot be said that there is breach of terms of the insurance policy under Section 149(2) of the M. V. Act (See National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh , (2004) 3 SCC 297 para 110) 7. Accordingly, the impugned judgment/ Award is set aside and the instant Misc. Appeal stands allowed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Appellant is permitted to withdraw the statutory amount deposited before the Registry at the time of filing of the instant Misc.Appeal.