The burden of proving the absence of a valid license with the driver in a motor accident claim case lies with the insurance company, and failure to discharge this burden can result in upholding the compensation awarded to the claimants.

1. - At the request of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard on merit.

2. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Raju Singh was standing near Nagour road on 9th April, 1996 and a Jeep No. RJ-14-00873 hit Raju Singh resulting into death of Raju Singh. The Jeep was being driven by Mahesh Kumar. The FIR was lodged and case under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A IPC was registered against Mahesh Kumar. The claimant legal representatives of Raju Singh submitted the claim petition seeking claim of Rs. 24,51,000/-. The Non- applicants no. 1 and 2 respondents no. 6 and 7 did not appear before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, therefore, the tribunal proceeded ex-parte against these two respondents. However, the appellant Insurance Company submitted reply to the claim petition. The tribunal framed issues whether Raju Singh died because of the accident caused by Mahesh Kumar by driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently and whether Mahesh Kumar was in employment of vehicle owner Dilip Singh and in case, the issues are decided in favour of the claimant what can be the reasonable compensation. The claimants produced witnesses Kiranpuri, Ghyan Singh, Bhikh Singh, Bebi and Om Singh whereas the Insurance company produced Subash Bohra as witness. The tribunal decided issue no. 1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and held that Mahesh Kumar was in employment of Dilip Singh and he was driving the Jeep, which hit Raju Singh causing death of Raju Singh. While deciding issue no. 3, the tribunal s determined the monthly income of deceased Raju Singh as Rs. 2100/- and after applying multiplier of 18 and deducting ⅓ of the amount, awarded Rs. 3,02,400/- to the claimant on account of loss of earning of deceased Raju Singh. The tribunal further awarded Rs. 50,000/1- in lump sum to the claimants for loss of love and affection of Raju Singh to the claimants. The tribunal to refused to grant any compensation for loss of cloths, shoes, watch and cycle of Raju Singh. The tribunal even refused to allow the expenses, which were borne in the treatment of Raju Singh by the claimants and for which the medical bills Ex. 9 to Ex. 101 were produced by the claimants. In total Rs. 3,52,400/- was awarded to the claimants.

3. The appellant Insurance Company preferred this appeal on the ground that the driver of the jeep was not holding valid licence at the time of accident, therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for any compensation.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that even if it is held that burden of proving the issue of not having driving licence by the driver was upon the insurance company, still the burden stand discharged by the evidence of the witnesses of the appellant Insurance Company because of the reason that witness of the appellant company stated on oath that the driver of the vehicle was not having the valid driving licence at the time of accident. It is also submitted that the claimants have not produced the copy of licence or the licence nor there is any evidence on record to prove that the driver was holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. According to learned counsel for the appellant this is a clear violation of the terms of the policy and the appellant is not liable for the reimbursement of the compensation.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-claimants submitted that, in fact, the burden was upon the appellant Insurance Company to prove that the drive was not holding the valid driving licence_ Mere word of mouth of a person, who admits that he had no knowledge about the fact, cannot be treated as an statement on fact relevant for consideration by the court of law. Therefore, not only the appellant Insurance Company failed to discharge the burden, but the appellant company even did not intend to prove the defence taken by the appellant company as no efforts were made by the appellant company to prove the fact that the driver was not holding valid licence.

6. I conside