1. Admit.

2. Notice after admission made returnable forthwith. Heard both the sides for final disposal. Such order was made by this Court on 21st April 2014.

3. The appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment and award of MACP No.95 of 2008 which was pending before the Claims Tribunal Ambajogai, District Beed. In a petition filed by the respondent No.1, original claimant, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,42,500/- and the owner and Insurance Company are made jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount.

4. It is the case of the Insurance Company that the rider of the motor cycle was not holding valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident and so it cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. In view of this defence issue was framed by the Tribunal. Both the sides gave evidence.

5. The Insurance Company examined its officer and produced the record like copy of charge-sheet filed against the rider of the motor cycle. Case was filed against the rider of the motor cycle, the offending vehicle, for offence of driving the vehicle without valid and effective driving licence (under section 3 read with section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988). The officer gave evidence that notice was sent by registered post with acknowledgment due on the address available on the record, supplied to the police and the owner was asked to supply information regarding the driving licence of the driver but the notice was returned with remark that the owner was not residing at the address. Copy of insurance certificate-cum-policy was produced to show that as per the statutory provisions there was clause in the policy and the vehicle could have been driven only by person holding valid and effective driving licence.

6. The Tribunal has observed that the burden was on the Insurance Company to prove that the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence and that they failed to discharge that burden. It is observed that it was necessary for the Insurance Company to examine Investigating Officer to prove the aforesaid defence and even the driver could have been examined by the Insurance company.

7. Both the sides placed reliance on some reported cases on aforesaid point. Before considering the reported cases, relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) need to be seen. In section 3 of the Act it is made clear that no person shall drive motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds a valid driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle. Section 5 shows that no owner or person in charge of the motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy provision of section 3, to drive the vehicle. Provision of Section 133 of the Act shows that whenever accident takes place it is duty of the owner of motor vehicle to give information to police if it is demanded and the information should include information about name and address of the driver and particulars of the licence held by the driver. Provision of section 134 of the Act shows that this provision is applicable both to the driver and the owner (in explanation it is made clear that driver includes the owner). This provision shows that when accident takes place, the driver/owner must give information required by police if police officer is present on the spot and if no police officer is present on the spot, give report about the circumstances of the occurrence to the nearest police station as soon as possible (provision of Section 134(b)). The provision of Section 134(c) shows that, the driver / owner are expected to give information in writing to the Insurer about occurrence of accident and this information includes the information about name of the driver and the particulars of his driving licence.

8. The provision of section 158 of the Act shows that when such accident takes place and the driver of the vehicle does not at the time when offi