The absence of endorsement on the driver's license did not constitute a fundamental breach of the insurance policy, and the insurance company was liable to pay compensation.

( 1 ) THIS order shall govern the disposal of M. A. Nos. 1556, 1557, 1558, 1559, 1560, 1561 and 1562 of 2004.

( 2 ) THIS and the connected appeals are being heard analogously as all of them arise out of the common award passed by the Second Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Rewa in motor vehicle cases decided on 24. 2. 2004.

( 3 ) ALL the aforesaid appeals have been preferred by the owners of tanker No. MP 17-C-0103, which had met with an accident with jeep bearing registration No. MP 19-A 8155 on 16. 4. 1999 at about 9 p. m. In the said accident five persons had died and three had sustained bodily injuries. One of the deceased also happened to be driver of the jeep. Shyam Sunder Rajak, respondent No. 3, was driver of the tanker. Manoj kumar, respondent No. 4, was owner of the jeep and tanker was insured with Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent No. 5, whereas jeep was insured with United india Insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent No. 6. Since five deaths had occurred on account of the aforesaid accident between the two vehicles and three had sustained injuries, the legal representatives of the deceased and the injured, all had filed separate claim petitions. All of them were heard together and were disposed of by a common award. The learned Tribunal had allowed all the claim petitions and held that it was the tanker which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, Shyam Sunder rajak, respondent No. 3. The said tanker admittedly belonged to the appellants and was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , respondent No. 5. Tribunal also came to the conclusion that on the relevant date, driver was not holding proper and valid driving licence to drive the tanker. Therefore, no liability for payment of compensation has been fastened on the insurance company, instead it is the appellants who have been held liable to pay the amount of compensation. Appellants being the owner of the tanker, on whom liability has been fastened to pay amount of compensation, are before us challenging the said award on various grounds.

( 4 ) MR. J. P. Sanghi, the learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. Aditya Sanghi, strenuously contended the following points:that Satya Narayan Chamadhiya, appellant No. 2, had appeared in the witness-box and had categorically deposed that before hiring the services of respondent no. 3, he had seen his driving licence. After going through the driving licence as shown by the respondent No. 3, he was apparently and prima facie satisfied that he was holding a proper and valid driving licence to drive the tanker. He has further deposed that he had also seen him driving a similar tanker belonging to Hindustan petroleum Limited. Hindustan Petroleum limited had also given a certificate in this regard. After having gone through the licence and the certificate given to him by the Hindustan Petroleum Limited, he was apparently satisfied that respondent No. 3 was having a valid and proper licence to drive.

( 5 ) IT was also contended that nothing more was required to be done by the appellants to find out the correctness and genuineness of the licence shown to them, as it was not expected from them that they would have gone to get it verified from the issuing authority.

( 6 ) LASTLY, it was contended that similar question has already been answered in favour of the appellants while deciding satya Narayan Chamadhiya v. Saroj Devi dwivedi, M. A. No. 34 of 2003; decided on 16. 9. 2005, in which similar question had cropped up for consideration.

( 7 ) BOTH the counsel appearing for the parties have placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court reported in united India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 ACJ 611 (SC) and a later judgment in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC ). It is contended on behalf of insurance company that the burden that lay on the appellants to have satisfied themselves with regard to the correctness and genuineness of t