1. This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 14th October 1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (MACT), Nashik in MACP No.257 of 1991. The appellant is the Insurance Company.

2. The facts of the appeal can be stated in brief as follows:-

On 21st May 1990 the deceased Shivaji Pandharinath Dabhade was working as a labourer over tractor bearing No.MH-15-B-6804 owned by respondent No.7. He met with a fatal accident when original opponent No.2 was driving the said tractor and as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of Opponent No.2, the trolly turned turtle and deceased came under the trolly. At the time of accident, the deceased was running the age of 25 years. The original claimant No.1 is wife and claimant No.2 is the daughter of the deceased who was born two months after the death of deceased. They filed claim petition before the tribunal for compensation, which came to be resisted by the original opponent No.1. Admitting that tractor trolly was owned by him but denying the knowledge relating to how the accident took place and who was responsible for the same. In the alternate it was submitted that the tractor was duly insured with opponent No.3 and hence there was no liability of opponent No.1 to deny the compensation. As to the income of deceased, it was denied that the deceased was earning Rs.1500/- per month. It was further contended that if any thing has happened due to the act of opponent No.2, then, opponent No.2 was personally liable fort the same.

3. Opponent No.2 has denied that the accident has occurred due to his negligence. It was contended that the deceased was leading the manure in the trolley at his own risk.

4. As regards the Opponent No.3, insurance company, a specific contention was raised to the effect that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid licence and in view thereof there was breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, hence, insurance company needs to be absolved of the liability and responsibility.

5. On these respective pleadings of the parties, the tribunal framed necessary issues. The claimant No.1 led her own evidence and mainly relied upon the copy of the complaint, Exh.51 and the copy of panchanama Exh.15. Opponent No.2, the driver also entered into the witness box and produced a photocopy of the driving licence issued by the R.T.O. at Dehradun. Insurance Company, however, did not led any oral evidence. In the light of the evidence led before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was pleased to hold that the insurance company has failed to discharge the burden to prove that the driver of the vehicle was not having valid driving licence. Accordingly, the Tribunal held both the owner of the vehicle and also the insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay the claim amount of Rs.96,400/- with interest.

6. This judgment of the tribunal is challenged by the insurance company on the only ground that there was no evidence worth the name to show that the driver of the vehicle was having any valid licence. It is urged that in the complaint Exh.51, certified copy of which was relied upon by the claimant themselves, it was clearly stated that the Driver was not having valid driving licence and hence offence under section 3 read with section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act was registered against the driver. By placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Vs. Premlata Shukla and Ors., reported in (2007) 13 S.C.C. 476, it is urged that when the claimants themselves are relying upon the certified copy of the F.I.R./complaint, then contents thereof are ipso facto proved and claimants cannot rely upon them partially. It is urged that the party which has brought the documents on record cannot later contend that other portion of document has not been proved. Hence, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, when the contents of the complaint are clear enough to show that driver of the vehicle was prosecu