Basant,J.

The 2nd respondent before the Tribunal who is the owner of a Motor Cycle involved in the accident is the appellant. His vehicle was involved in an accident. At the time of the accident, the 4th respondent was riding the motor cycle and one Ramkumar, the son of the first respondent and brother of respondents 2 and 3 was riding as pillion. In the accident the 4th respondent and the said Ramkumar suffered injuries. Ramkumar succumbed to the injuries suffered by him. Mother and brothers of Ramkumar (hereinafter referred to as the claimants) staked a claim for compensation against the 4th respondent(the rider), the appellant (the owner) and the 5th respondent (the Insurer). An amount of Rs.2,60,000/-was claimed as compensation. Binu, (i.e. the 4th respondent) the alleged rider of the motor cycle took up a contention that, not he, but the deceased was riding the motor cycle at the time of the accident. The appellant/owner took up a contention that the rider of the vehicle was at the relevant time riding the vehicle without his permission or authorisation. According to him, he is employed in the Railways. He had gone for his work on 12-4-1994 after entrusting the vehicle to the workshop of RW3 for repairs. He had returned from work only on 14-4-1994. He had then come to know that the accident had taken place on 13-4-1994. In short, he contended that the rider of the vehicle did not have his authority to ride the vehicle and hence he is not liable to compensate the claimants.

2. The Insurer admitted that there was a comprehensive policy issued in respect of the vehicle issued to the owner/appellant at the relevant time. It was a comprehensive policy. However, the Insurer contended that the Insurer is not liable as the rider, the first respondent at the relevant time did not have a valid driving licence. The Insurer thus disputed the liability to satisfy the claim. There was of course dispute regarding the quantum of compensation payable also.

3. The first claimant examined herself as PW1. Exts.A1 to A8 were produced. The only document relevant to our consideration is Ext.A6 as per which the police after investigation had filed final report indicting the 4th respondent herein as the rider of the vehicle alleging that he was guilty of culpable rashness and negligence.

4. On the side of the respondents, RWs.1 to 4 were examined and Exts.B1 to B8 were marked. Exts.X1 to X2(a) were also marked.

5. The appellant/owner had staked a claim before the Insurance Company claiming payment of amounts towards the loss suffered by the vehicle which was covered by the comprehensive policy of insurance. Ext.B7 is the policy of insurance and Ext.B6 is the claim staked by the appellant before the Insurance company claiming amounts for damage suffered by his vehicle. Along with the same, he had produced before the Insurance Company Ext.B8 photocopy of the driving licence of the rider, i.e. the 4th respondent herein.

6. The Insurance Company took the stand that the 4th respondent did not have a valid driving licence. The Insurance Company examined RW1 an official of the Motor vehicle department which allegedly had issued Ext.B1 driving licence which is the original of Ext.B8. Ext.X1 to X2(a) were produced and marked through RW1 to substantiate the contention of the Insurance Company that Exts.B1/B8 driving licence was a fake and non-genuine driving licence.

7. The appellant examined himself in support of his contention that he had entrusted the vehicle on 12-4-1994 to the workshop where RW3 is the mechanic. He examined RW3 as a witness in support of that contention. He examined RW4 an d proved Exts.X2 and X2(a) to fortify his contention that he was on duty from 12-4-1994 to 14-4-1994 and was not available in the locality when the accident took place. RW3 was examined to confirm that the vehicle had been entrusted for repairs to the workshop and that the 4th respondent and the deceased Ramkumar had taken the vehicle from the workshop du