The judgment emphasizes the importance of the insurer's burden to prove the lack of a valid driving license and the breach of policy conditions to avoid liability for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the judgment and Award dated 30. 4. 2001 passed by the Court of District judge and MACT at Gadag, by which, a sum of Rs. 80,000/- has been awarded to the claimant since, according to it, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation from it.

( 2 ) HEARD the Counsel for the parties. It is submitted for the appellant - Insurance Company that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding it (Insurance Company) liable to pay compensation when the rider of the motorcycle, who was arrayed as 1st respondent before the Tribunal had no valid and effective driving licence to drive motorcycle as on the date of accident, which has been established as of fact by adducing documentary evidence. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the other side supported the impugned judgment and Award. Perused the records carefully.

( 3 ) IN brief, the facts giving rise to the present Appeal are: the claimant filed claim petition before the Tribunal stating that on 19. 12. 1996 when he was proceeding 'towards his village on his cycle, near Raju Dhaba Hotel at Naragund on Nargund- Solapur road, a motor-cyclist came at great speed from opposite direction driving a motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him causing grievance injuries, for which he took treatment but left with certain disabilities inspite of treatment taken and hence, claimed compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the Driver, owner and insurer of the said motorcycle jointly and severally. The 1st and 2nd respondents before the Tribunal i. e. , the rider and owner of motorcycle respectively, though appeared through their learned counsel, did not file any written -"statement. However, the 3rd respondent, who is appellant before this Court, filed objections putting the claimant to strict proof of the averments in the claim petition and disputed the liability to pay any compensation since, according to it, the accident was not due to any rash or negligent act of the motorcyclist and as the owner of the motor-cycle had not handed-over the motor-cycle to the person holding driving licence and consequently requested to dismiss the claim. The Tribunal, after enquiry, held 1st respondent- rider of the motor-cycle alone as responsible for'the accident and consequently awarded compensation of Rs. 80,060/- with interest Rs. 6% per annum to claimant and payable by the 3rd respondent, the correctness of which is assailed before this Court by way of Appeal.

( 4 ) SINCE the appellant - Insurance Company has not assailed the finding of the Tribunal regarding actionable negligence of the 1st respondent - rider of the motor cycle in causing accident to the claimant on the date of accident besides the amount of compensation determined by the Tribunal, the only point for consideration is:"whether the Insurance Company has proved that the rider of the motor-cycle had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the motor-cycle as on the date of accident and as such, it is not liable to pay compensation?"

( 5 ) IT is the specific case of the appellant- Insurance Company that the rider of the motor-cycle was not holding valid and effective driving licence as on the time of accident and the 2nd respondent- owner of the said vehicle has failed to hand-over the vehicle to the person, who was holding valid and effective driving licence and violated the terms of conditions of policy and consequently, it is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. It is well settled that burden to prove the said facts squarely lies on insurer only. If need be, reference can be had to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of RUKMANI AND OTHERS vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE company AND OTHERS'.

( 6 ) IN support of its case, the insurer relies only on Ex. R. 2-endorsement issued by ARTO,but not examined any official /officer to prove it. A Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed as under in the case of NAT