1. By the medium of this appeal, the appellant insurer has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short "the Act", whereby it has questioned the award, dated 31st March, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, Himachal Pradesh, (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 16 of 2006, titled Sher Singh v. Krishan Dev and another, whereby compensation to the tune of L1,56,108/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and against the respondent-insurer, (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned award").

2. Sher Singh, the claimant-injured and Krishan Dev, the driver-cum-owner have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them.

3. The appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, i.e. 29th March, 2004. Thus, the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling it with the liability.

4. It is necessary to give a brief summary of the case in order to return findings on the issue raised by the appellant.

5. It was pleaded by the claimant in the claim petition that he became victim of the motor vehicular accident on 29th March, 2004, at about 7.30 a.m., when he was walking on the left side of the road at Village Kalruhi and was hit by the vehicle-scooter bearing registration No. HP-19-7278, which was being driven by its driver, namely, Krishan Dev, rashly and negligently. He sustained injuries and was rushed for treatment to Primary Health Centre, Amb. Thereafter, he was referred to Zonal Hospital, Una. He suffered 30% permanent disability.

6. The respondents contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in their memo of objections.

7. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal:

"1. Whether petitioner Sher Singh sustained grievous injuries in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a scooter (No. HP-19-7278) by Krishan Dev (respondent 1) on March 29, 2004 .OPP

2. If the above issue 1 is proved, whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so, to what amount and from whom OPP

3. Whether the driver of the vehicle (No. HP- 19-7278) was not holding any valid and effective driving licence to drive the type of vehicle involved in the accident OPR-2

4. Whether the vehicle in question was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy OPR-2

5. Whether the petition is bad for misjoinder of parties and non-joinder of the owner, the driver and the insurer of the vehicle No. (HP-19-7278) OPR-2

6. Relief."

8. The parties have led evidence. The claimant has proved that driver-cum-owner, namely, Krishan Dev has driven the offending vehicle, rashly and negligently, on the said date, caused the accident and he sustained injuries which rendered him permanently disabled to the extent of 30%. The findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld.

9. Before I deal with Issue No. 2, I deem it proper to deal with Issues No. 3 to 5.

10. Issues No. 3 to 5 are inter-linked, so I deem it proper to determine all these issues together.

11. The driver was having driving licence Ext. RW- 1/A. In terms of Ext. RW-2/A, the driving licence Ext. RW-1/A was valid w.e.f. 2001 to 14th April, 2006.

12. Learned Counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that though the driving licence was not valid on 29th March, 2004, i.e. the date of accident, was renewed w.e.f. 2001 to 14th April, 2006, which is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The factum of renewal of licence with retrospective date i.e. w.e.f. 2001 to 14th April, 2006, is not in dispute, but its validity is questioned.

13. I have gone through the evidence and the record. As per Ext. RW-2/A, the driving licence Ext. RW- 1/A was renewed w.e.f. 2001 to 14th April, 2006.

14. Shri Gogal Kishor Agnihotri, Assistant, District Transport Office, Hoshiarpur, appeared in the witness box as RW-2, who has stated that as per the record, driving licence Ext. RW-1/A was renewed from the year 2001 upto 2006, was valid and effective. The said statement is the proof of the fact that the driving licence was valid w.e.f. 2001 to 14th April, 2006. He has supported the case of the owner and not of the insurer appellant.

15. The Tribunal has discussed the statement of the aforesaid witness in para 20 of the impugned award.

16. Thus, it is held that the driving licence Ext. RW-1/A was valid on the date of accident, i.e. 29th March, 2004.

17. It was also for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner-insured has committed wilful breach. There is no such evidence on the file, which can be made basis for holding that the insured had committed any breach.

18. This Court in a judgment dated 11th July, 2014, rendered in FAO No. 291 of 2007, titled Vinod Kumar v. United India Assurance Company Limited and another has determined the said issue.

19. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the appellant-insurer with the liability. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issues No. 2 to 4 are upheld.

20. The onus to prove Issue No. 5 was upon the appellant-insurer, but it has failed to discharge. Accordingly, the findings returned on Issue No. 5 are also upheld.

21. The appellant-insurer has not questioned the adequacy of compensation.

22. Having said so, the impugned award is maintained and the appeal is dismissed.

23. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque.

24. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the file of the claim petition.

Appeal dismissed.