The burden of proof on the insurance company to establish the driver's lack of a valid license under the Motor Vehicles Act can be discharged by producing the license without the required endorsement, supported by testimony from a regional transport office staff.

1. This appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.463 of 1990. The Insurance Company is the appellant in the above appeal.

2. According to the claimant, the accident, took place near Natarajapuram on 5.3.1990 at about 7.00 hours. At the place of occurrence, the road runs East to West. He was riding his cycle and was proceeding towards Ariyur from Siruvathaiyur, namely from West to East keeping to his left and by observing the rules of road. When he was nearing Natrajapuram, the vehicle bearing registration No.T.D.O.9781 (motor cycle) belonging to the first respondent and insured with the second respondent, was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner in a high speed. It was coming on the opposite direction, namely, from East to West. As a result of the rash and negligent manner of driving, the driver lost control over his vehicle and as a consequence it dashed against the petitioner’s cycle. As a result of the impact, the petitioner was thrown out and sustained multiple injuries all over his body. His right leg was fractured and the cycle was also damaged. The accident resulted only as a result of the negligent driving of the first respondent driver. A total sum of Rs.1,00,000 was claimed as compensation.

3. In the written statement filed by the first respondent, the owner of the vehicle, it was contended that he has already sold the vehicle as early as 4.9.1989 to one Rathinasabapathy. The delivery note was filed along with the written statement. From that day onwards, Rathinasabapathy alone was the owner and not this respondent. This fact was also intimated to the second respondent Insurance Company. The petitioner must be directed to implead the said Rathinasabapathy as a party. This respondent was unnecessary party to the petition.

4. In the counter filed by the second respondent. Insurance Company it was stated that the fact that the driver of the vehicle G.Raja had valid licence to drive the same, should be proved accordingly. The earnings as claimed by the claimant was also disputed. The claim of compensation at Rs.1,00,000 was highly excessive and exhorbitant.

5. On a consideration of the said pleadings and evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident had occurred only as a result of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle. A sum of Rs.22,000 was fixed as compensation. Hence, the present appeal by the Insurance Company.

6. The Insurance company is questioning its liability only on the ground that the driver of the vehicle namely, Raja had no valid driving licence. The Insurance Company had marked Ex.R.2, the driving licence as evidence. The licence does not have any endorsement entitling the licence holder to drive two wheelers. R.W.2, an Inspector from the Regional Transport Office was also examined. R.W.2 has deposed that there was no endorsement for driving two wheelers in favour of the said Raja nor any separate licence had been issued.

7. However the Tribunal held that the Insurance company had not properly discharged its burden of proof as regards whether the driver had proper licence or not.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant states that the burden of proof has been sufficiently discharged by the Insurance company by producing the licence as well as examining the competent official from the Regional Transport Office and it is clearly established that there is neither any endorsement nor any fresh licence in favour of the driver entitling him to drive the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal was in error in holding the Insurance company liable.

9. The learned counsel also relies on the judgment of this court in C.M.A.No.312 of 1989 delivered in March 1998.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent contends that it is not sufficient for the Insurance Company merely to produce the copy of the licence or to examine an official from the Regional Transport Office and it is not proper discharge of the burden of proof on the part of the I