V.K. Gupta, CJ.—The only ground of challenge in this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment and award dated December 6, 1999 passed in MAC Case No. 51 of 1997 by the learned Motor Accident CLalms Tribunal, Bilaspur is that the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident did not hold a valid driving licence.

2. The following five issues were framed by the Tribunal for adjudication:—

1. Whether deceased Dile Raj died in the accident of truck No. DL-IG-0557 which was being driven rashly and negligently by truck driver, if so its effect? OPP.

2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP.

3. Whether truck driver was not having valid driving licence, if so, its effect? OPR-2.

4. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-2.

5. Relief.

3. Issue No. 3 alone is relevant for our purposes in this appeal because the question of validity of driving licence involved in this appeal is the subject matter of this issue. Finding of the Tribunal on Issue No. 3, onus whereof was on the appellant-insurer is contained in para 8 of the impugned judgment and award. I have seen para 8 and find that the Tribunal has made a very pertinent observation to the effect that the appellant-Insurer did not lead any evidence to establish or prove the fact regarding the invalidity of the driving licence of the Tribunal, except to produce three documents, being Ext. R-5 to R-7 before the Tribunal. The Tribunals observation further is that these three documents have not been proved in any manner whatsoever and that in any case Ext. R-7 is a wholly illegible photocopy of a so-called driving licence and that nothing can be made out from this illegible photocopy, apart from the fact that this has not been tendered in evidence appropriately nor has this document along with other two documents Ext. R-5 and R-6 been proved in any manner.

4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

5. Undoubtedly, the onus of proving the contentious issue with respect to the validity of the driving licence squarely lay upon the appellant-Insurer and the only manner in which the appellant could discharge this onus was by adducing cogent evidence, establishing and proving before the Tribunal the fact that at the time of the accident the driver did not hold a valid driving licence. Rather than doing that, or rather than producing cogent evidence on the subject, all that the appellant did was to produce before the Tribunal through its Counsel the aforesaid three documents which for unexpLalned reasons have been marked as Exts. R-5, R-6 and R-7 by the Tribunal. Ext. R-5 actually is the copy of a letter dated February 7, 1998 written by one Ajay Kumar Jain whom the appellant-Insurer refers to as its Surveyor. This document makes a very interesting reading. It requires to be reproduced verbatim. To The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. D.O.-22, Karol Bagh, Delhi. Dear Sir, Reg:—Verification of DL-No.C-92060026 of Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Madan Lal. Your reference No-Case titled Ganga Devi v. Ashok Kumar. In accordance to your instruction in connection with the verification of Driving Licence. From LA Delhi. I had visited the office of L.A. Delhi on 4/2/98 where my letter along with the enclosures was handed over to Licensing clerk for their verification and verification fee also deposited vide their receipt No. 164694 Dt. 4/2/ 98 and report obtained which reveals that DL No. C-92060026 was issued in June 1992 in the name of Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Madan Lal authorising him to drive HMV+M Cycle only and valid upto 31/5/95 as per authority record. The requisite written consents as obtained from LA Mall Road, Delhi on my letter enclosed here for your perusal and necessary action at your end. Thanking you.

6. Neither the author of this document Shri Ajay Kumar Jain nor anyo