The insurance company is liable to pay the full amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal if it fails to discharge the burden of proving that the driver of the insured vehicle did not have a valid driving licence.

R.S. Kejriwal, J.-These three appeals arise out of a commonjudgment dated 17.1.1992 given in AppealNo. 318 of 1988 (Ramanand vs. Lalita Sharma), S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 341 of 1988 (Lalita Sharma vs. Ramanand) and S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 368 of 1988 (K.C. Agrawal vs. Lalita Sharma).

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, against the appellants, National Insurance Co. Ltd., New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Jaipur and Ramanand, Sita Ram, Kailash Chand and Sagar Singh in relation to the death of Gopal Lal which was caused on 9.1982. Gopal Lal was working in the Sheep and Wool Department. He was going on a bicycle at a normal speed on the correct side of the road. When he reached near Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, bus No. RRL 1924, owned by Kailash Chand Agrawal, which was being driven rashly and negligently by Sagar Singh, hit the deceased cyclist from behind. As a result of the impact of the bus, Gopal Lal fell on the road. At the same time, a tractor, bearing No. PUW 3663, which too was coming from the same direction and which was also being driven rashly and negligently by Sita Ram crushed Gopal Lal. As a result, Gopal Lal died instantaneously. The tractor was owned by Ramanand. The claimants had prayed that compensation amount amounting to Rs. 2,10,000/-be awarded against the nonapplicants.

3. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., with which the tractor was insured, contested the claim petition and pleaded that the driver of the tractor did not have a valid licence and, therefore, the company was not liable to pay any amount to the claimants. The National Insurance Co. Ltd., with which the bus was insured, pleaded that the driver of the bus was not at fault and in any case, in view of the provisions of Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short ‘1939 Act’) it is not liable to pay more than Rs. 50,000/-by way of compensation.

4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal considered the evidence led by the various parties and, after hearing the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, passed an award dated 11.1988. It declared that the applicants-claimants were entitled to a compensation of Rs. 80,000/-along with interest at the rate of 10 per cent from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 112.1982. If the payment was not made within one month, 12 per cent interest was to be payable from the date of application. It further declared that National Insurance Co. Ltd. was liable to pay Rs. 50,000/-and for the remaining amount the liability was joint and several qua Ramanand, Sita Ram, Kailash Chand and Sagar Singh. It further declared that New India Assurance Co. Ltd. was not liable to pay the compensation.

5. Against this award, three separate appeals were filed and, as already noticed hereinabove, all those appeals have been disposed of by a common judgment dated 17.1.1992.

6. In assailing the judgment dated 17.1.1992, Mr. Alok Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant, has, in the first instance, argued that the learned single Judge has committed a serious error of law in interfering with the finding of fact recorded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the question that the tractor driver did not have a valid licence. Mr. Sharma argued that the learned Tribunal has carefully analysed the evidence produced by the parties and it has placed reliance on the evidence of Shrawan Singh, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who clearly deposed that the licence produced by Sita Ram was forged one and for that Sita Ram was being prosecuted in a Court of law. The argument of Mr. Sharma is that once the Tribunal has believed the testimony of Shrawan Singh and has drawn a particular conclusion, it was not open for the learned single Judge to have interfered with the finding of the Tribunal, merely because the learned single Judge entertained a different opinion on the appreciation of evi