Burden lies on the insurer to prove that the driver was not in possession of a valid driving licence.

G. Ramanujam, J.

1. The above appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Co., Tirucnirapalli, against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli, awarding to the respondent-claimants a sum of Rs. 30,000 as compensation for one accident that took place 011 4th March, 1974, at about 3.30 P. M. near Tiruchirapalli junction. Cross-objections have been filed by the respondents-claimants claiming an enhanced compensation.

2. On 4th March, 1974 at about 3.30 P. M. one T.S. Krishnamurthi who was working as an accountant in Coaching section, Southern Railway at Tiruchirapalli, while crossing the road was hit by an auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. M/TNY 1878 belonging to one Joseph and as the result of the impact, the said T.S. Krishnamurthi fell down, sustained injuries and died at the spot. On the ground that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto-rickshaw by its driver, the legal representatives of the said Krishnamurthi filed a claim before the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirapalli, claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,000 The said claim was opposed both by the owner of the auto-rickshaw as well as the Insurance Company with which the auto-rickshaw had been insured. Their common case was that the accident did not occur as a result of the rash and negligent driving of the auto-rickshaw by its driver and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation. So far as the Insurance Company is concerned, it took another defence to avoid the liability of paying compensation. It took the plea that the driver of the auto-rickshaw did not have a valid licence to drive that vehicle and therefore, under the terms of the policy it had issued, the Insurance Company cannot be hold liable. The following three points arose for consideration before the Tribunal-

1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto-rickshaw by its driver?

2. Whether the driver of the auto-rickshaw had valid licence to drive the said vehicle? and

3. What is the compensation amount, if any, payable to the claimants by any of the respondents?

The Tribunal after considering the evidence adduced by all parties held on the first point that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto-rickshaw and that, therefore, the claimants are entitled to compensation arising out of the death of the said Krishnamurthi as a result of the accident. On the second question as to whether the driver of the auto-rickshaw had valid licence to drive the vehicle, the Tribunal took the view that though the Insurance Company had taken the plea that the driver of the auto-rickshaw had no valid licence to drive the vehicle, it has not chosen to adduce acceptable and convincing evidence to establish that fact and therefore, it cannot avoid the liability to pay compensation arising out of the policy on that ground, On the question of compensation arising under Point No. 3, the Tribunal held that the deceased was spending on his family a sum of Rs. 500 per month, out of his salary and therefore, the annual dependency could be determined at Rs. 6,000 and having regard to the fact that he had only five years of service before retirement, a sum of Rs. 30,000 will be a fair and reasonable compensation payable to the claimants in the circumstances of the case.

3. The insurance Company has chosen to challenge the finding of the Tribunal on the question whether the driver of the auto-rickshaw had a valid licence to drive the vehicle. The claimants have filed the memorandum of cross-objections claiming enhanced compensation, not satisfied with the quantum awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, in this appeal, the following two questions have to be considered by us-

1. Whether the driver of the auto-rickshaw had a valid licence to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident?

2. Whether the Insurance Company can avoid the liability to pay compensation on that ground?

4. There cannot be any di