The insurance company is liable to pay compensation even if the driver of the insured vehicle does not have a valid driving license, unless the insurance company can prove that the driver had a forged driving license.

1. - All the three appeals filed under Section 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (now Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) arise out of the same award, therefore, they are decided by one order.

2. As stated in Appeal No. 368 of 1990, respondent Nos. 1 to 6 filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jaipur, against the appellant and respondent Nos. 7 to 11, on account of accidental death of deceased Gopal Lal, on September 9,1982. It is stated that deceased, who was working in Sheep and Wool Department, was going on a cycle in normal speed. It is further stated that the deceased was on his correct side of the road. When he reached near Lai Kothi, Tonk Road, a bus bearing No. RRL 1924 owned by the appellant, which is said to have been rashly and negligently driven by respondent No. 2, hit the deceased cyclist from behind, as a result of which he fell on the road. At the same time, a tractor, bearing No. PUW 3663, was also coming from the same direction, which is said to have been driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 8, ran over the body of the deceased and crushed him, as a result of which he died instantaneously. The tractor is owned by respondent No. 7. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 11, with which the tractor was insured, raised a defence that respondent No. 8, the driver of the tractor, had no valid licence, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount to the claimants. The National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 10, with which the bus mentioned above was insured, claimed that the bus was not at fault, but, in any case, as per provisions of Sections 95 and 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short, 'the MV Act'), it is not liable to pay more than Rs. 50,000/-. The learned Tribunal, in its award dated November 7, 1988, while deciding issue No. 1, apportioned the negligence to the extent of 70 per cent and 30 per cent of the bus and the tractor drivers respectively. It further held while deciding issue No. 5 that since the tractor driver had no valid licence, therefore, the insurance company, respondent No. 11, was not liable to pay any compensation. While deciding issue Nos. 3 and 6, a sum of Rs. 80,000/-along with interest has been awarded to the claimants. The National Insurance Co. Ltd., respondent No. 10, was made responsible to pay to the extent of limited liability amounting to Rs. 50,000/- only. For rest of the amount, both the drivers and owners of the bus and tractor have been made jointly and severally responsible for making payment to the claimants-respondents.

3. Mr. G.C. Mathur, learned counsel for the appellant in Appeal No. 368 of 1990, has raised twofold legal contentions. Firstly, it is contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in apportioning the negligence as, in the matter under consideration, the death was caused due to the negligence of both the vehicles. Therefore, this is a case of composite negligence and the same cannot be apportioned, as done by the learned Tribunal. Secondly, it is contended that the learned Tribunal has manifestly erred in holding that the driver of the tractor had no valid driving licence, therefore, respondent No. 11, New India Assurance Co. Ltd., has been wrongly exonerated from its liability. The plea of driver of the tractor, having no valid licence, was raised by respondent No. 11, but no evidence was produced by it. Hence, it has completely failed to discharge the burden of proving the allegation put forward by it. It is, therefore, contended that respondent No. 11 is also equally liable to pay the claim amount, in accordance with the provisions of law.

4. Appeal No. 318 of 1988 has been filed by registered owner of the tractor. It is submitted by Mr. M.M. Ranjan, learned counsel, that the tractor was being driven carefully and at a slow speed. It is further submitted that when the deceased was hit by the bus, he suddenly fell down on the road and the tractor overran him. T