Aravind Kumar, J.

1. Insurer is in appeal challenging judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in M.V.C. No. 6740 of 2007, dated 18-10-2010 whereunder claim petition filed by the first respondent herein has been allowed in part and a compensation of Rs. 75,028.98 with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till date of realisation has been ordered, as against a claim for Rs. 5,00,000/-. I have heard the arguments of Sri O. Mahesh, learned Counsel appearing for the insurer and Sri N. Gopala Krishna who has been appointed by this Court as Amicus Curiae, since the first respondent is served and unrepresented.

2. It is the contention of Sri O. Mahesh that Tribunal erred in not considering the fact that there was a charge-sheet filed against the driver of the offending vehicle under Section 3(1) read with Section181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as per Exhibit P. 5 for non-possessing driving licence and as such, insurer ought not to have been fastened with the liability by indemnifying the claim of insured. Hence, he seeks for absolving the insurer from answering the claim under the award in question.

3. Per contra, Sri N. Gopala Krishna would support the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and would contend that mere production of the charge-sheet would not prove the contents and there being no other evidence available on record to corroborate the contents of Exhibit P. 5, contention of the insurer is liable to be brushed aside. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal.

4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of judgment and award passed by the Tribunal and records secured from the Tribunal, I am of the considered view, that following point would arise for consideration:

Whether award of the Tribunal is just and correct in fastening the liability on the insurer, despite jurisdictional police having filed a charge-sheet against the driver of the offending vehicle for an offence punishable under Section 3(1)read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

5. There is no dispute to the fact that on 21-6-2007, at about 8.40 p.m., while claimant was standing near Ibbalur Lake Service Road, Audugodi, Bangalore a tempo bearing Registration No. KA-05-AD-3726 owned by second respondent herein, dashed against claimant, on account of said impact, claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He was admitted to Lake View Hospital and was treated as an in-patient and as such, he sought for compensation on account of disability suffered. Insurance Company appeared before Tribunal through its Counsel and filed its statement of objections and denied the contents of claim petition. On appreciation of evidence both oral and documentary, Tribunal allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs. 75,028.98/- with interest at 6% per annum, by fastening the liability on the Insurance Company and homing that insurer has failed to prove by cogent evidence, about non-possessing of effective driving licence by the driver of the tempo (offending vehicle). The only document relied upon by the learned Counsel for the insurer to buttress his argument that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing driving licence was, Exhibit P. 5, namely charge-sheet. The contents of the document has not been proved by the insurer. There is no witness examined on behalf of the insurer to prove the contents of Exhibit P. 5. Insurer having taken a defence in its written statement that driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence and the burden was cast very heavily on the insurer to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence when the owner of the offending vehicle had remained ex parte. It is no doubt true that a negative fact need not be proved, but when defence is raised by the insurer that there was no valid licence possessed by the driver of the offending vehicle, the burde