Subash Chandra Jha, J.

1. Heard learned Counsel of both the sides.

2. An application for claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , was filed by the claimants Meena Devi and her children in respect of death of Girdhar Prasad Sah, a Tractor Mechanic who was aged about 25 years on 6.9.1993 at 1 P.M. on 31, National High Way near Murli Madrani in the district of Bhagalpur. The deceased was said to have been driving the Tractor bearing Registration No. BHJ. 523 which turned turtle and fell down and he came under the tractor and died on the spot. Gopalpur P.S. Case No. 155/1993 was registered and investigation was made by the I.O. of the case. Post Mortem examination was held in Naugachia Sadar Hospital.

3. It has been averred in the petition that deceased was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month as Motor Mechanic and cultivation work. The vehicle concerned was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. Khagaria, vide Policy No. 170709/630-15-98 for Rs. 3,00,000/- (three lac).

4. The appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. made its appearance and filed written statement and challenged the maintainability of the claim on the ground that there was violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Cover besides taking plea of non-production of relevant papers in respect of the tractor in question.

5. The learned Tribunal after framing of the issues decided all the issues but important issues being Issue Nos. 3 and 4, which in substance were to this effect as to whether death of the deceased Girdhar Prasad Sah occurred due to turning of the tractor being driven by him and whether the applicants were entitled to receive any compensation from the Insurance Company.

6. In course of hearing before the Tribunal, five witnesses on behalf of the applicants were examined in respect of manner leading to the death of the deceased, earning of the deceased and his age and the learned Tribunal after considering the age of the deceased awarded compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Three lacs) and, thus, directed to deduct Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty five thousand) which was paid earlier by way of interim relief along with the interest as stated above.

7. Contention raised on behalf of the appellant was that the driver of the said Tractor had no licence to drive the vehicle and as such he violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Besides, relevant papers of the tractors were not filed in the court below and the claim of compensation was excessive. The appellant has also relied upon the report of its surveyor, who has reported that the vehicle was plying on the road on only three wheels. But this fact was not corroborated by any witnesses on behalf of the appellant.

8. In reply, the learned Counsel for the respondents-claimants has submitted that such denial of the Insurance Company from discharging its liability, the obligation is not tenable in the eye of law as also on facts in view of the decision of Hon ble Apex Court reported in 1985 (2) SCC, 574, wherein it has been held that it was the burden of the Insurance Company to prove that person driving vehicle had no valid licence, and mere failure to produce driving licence in Court can not absolve the insurance company from making payment of the compensation amount.

9. Another decision has a been cited on behalf of the respondents as reported in,(Binda Singh V/s. Narendra Pal Singh and Ors.) in support of his contention that the defence available to the insurance company in respect of non-production of Driving licence before the court below would not absolve the insurance company from making payment of compensation amount. Rather, the Insurance Company should have taken steps to summon the records of the District Transport Officer or ask the owner or driver of the vehicle to produce the licence in the court.

10. Here, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Insurance Company did not discharge its onus by invoking aforesaid steps and so simply by pleading that the dr