Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral)In the present appeal, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, award dated 4.9.2004 of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, has been assailed by the owner of the vehicle to the extent it holds the owner of the vehicle liable to pay compensation, together with interest, and absolves the Insurance Company, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence.

2. Appellant Naresh Kumar owned a bus. He had insured it with United Insurance Company, respondent No.6 herein, for third party risk, including the risk of passengers, travelling by the bus. Accident of the bus took place on 9.6.2001, in which one of the passengers, namely Garib Dass died. An application was moved by his dependents for award of compensation. Insurance Company was impleaded as respondent alongwith the appellant. Insurance company denied its liability to pay the compensation, pleading that the person, who was driving the bus at the relevant time, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence.

3. During the course of inquiry, Insurance Company succeeded in proving that the licence was fake, inasmuch as it had never been issued by the Licencing Authority, Raipur (Madhya Pradesh) by whom it purported to have been issued, though it had been renewed by the Licencing Authority, Amb, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, and the endorsement of renewal was genuine. With this finding, the Tribunal held that Insurance Company was not liable to pay the amount of compensation, assessed by it and directed the present appellant, in his capacity as the owner of the vehicle, to pay the compensation money of Rs.75,000/-, together with the interest.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

5. Appellant appeared as RW-3 and testified that before employing Ashok Kumar respondent No.5, to drive his bus, he had seen his driving licence and had verified, by reference to the record maintained by the Licencing Authority, Amb, which had renewed the licence, that the licence was genuine. That means, the owner of the vehicle or say the present appellant had satisfied himself about the validity of the licence, before employing respondent Ashok Kumar, as driver.

6. Admittedly, the licence was fake. It is also admitted case of both the sides that this fake licence had been renewed by Licencing Authority, Amb, which fact suggests that the forgery had been committed in such a subtle manner that even the Licencing Authority, Amb, could not detect it and that is why it renewed it (the licence).

7. Now, if a Licencing Authority could not detect the forgery, how could the appellant, who is a layman, have detected it. It is by now well settled that mere fact of a licence being fake or forged is not enough to absolve the Insurance Company of its liability. To get itself absolved of the liability, Insurance Company is required to prove that the insured was guilty of breach of condition of the policy and in a case of present type, Insurance Company is required to lead evidence that the owner of the vehicle/insured knew or had reasons to know that the licence was fake or forged. Reference in this behalf may be made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297.

8. In view of the above stated position, appeal is accepted. Impugned award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that alongwith the present appellant, Insurance Company, i.e. respondent No.6 United India Insurance Company is also held liable to satisfy the award and the liability of the appellant and the Insurance Company to pay the compensation money and the interest is held to be joint and several. Appeal stands disposed of.