The burden of proof for invalidity of the driver's license lies with the insurance company, and certain grounds for contesting the claim require prior permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Rajeev Gupta, C.J.

1. Sri. V. K. Kohli, Senior Counsel with Sri. T. Pande, Advocate for the appellant is heard on admission.

2. This is insurer's appeal against the Award dated 28-1-2006 passed by Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Dehradun in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 208 of 2004, whereby the appellant Insurance Company has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition i.e. 29-9-2004 to the claimants as compensation for the death of Km. Shaila daughter of respondents 1 and 2 and sister of respondents 3 and 4.

3. The claimants claimed compensation of Rs. 3,10,000/- for the death of Km. Shaila, aged about 13 years in the motor accident on 30-8-2004 when she was dashed by the offending vehicle - Tata Sumo bearing registration No. UA-12-0414 resulting in serious injuries to Km. Shaila, who succumbed to those injuries next day in the hospital.

4. The owner, driver and the insurer of the offending vehicle-Tata Sumo contested the claim. The owner and driver took the plea that the deceased girl herself was responsible for the accident whereas the insurer denied its liability to pay compensation to the claimants on the plea that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving license.

5. The Tribunal, on the evidence led by the parties, held that Km. Shaila died on account of the injuries sustained by her in the accident; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle-Tata Sumo; the driver was holding a valid driving license on the date of the accident; and the insurer of the offending vehicle-Tata Sumo was liable to pay compensation to the claimants.

6. The Tribunal following the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Manju Devi v. Musafir Paswan 2005 (1) TAC 609, wherein compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- was found to be just and proper for the death of a minor aged about 13 years, awarded compensation of Rs. 2,25,000/- to the claimants.

7. Sri V. K. Kohli, the learned Counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle - Tata Sumo was holding a valid driving license on the date of the accident and in not deducting l/3rd of the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- while computing the compensation award-able to the claimants.

8. Since the appellant-Insurance Company took the specific plea in their written statement that the driver of the offending vehicle Tata-Sumo was not holding a valid driving license, the burden was on the Insurance Company to establish that the license, a photo copy whereof was produced before the Tribunal (the original in all probability must have been seized by the police in the criminal case relating to the accident) was fake. For that purpose the appellant Insurance Company could have got the license verified from the office of the Regional Transport Officer from where the license purports to have been issued. Since nothing admittedly was done by the appellant-Insurance Company in that behalf, we do not find any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the appellant-Insurance Company could not establish its defence that the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo was not holding a valid driving license on the date of the accident.

9. The appellant's other submission that the Tribunal ought to have deducted l/3rd of the notional income of Rs. 15,000/- as personal expenses of the deceased deserves an outright rejection as the same essentially relates to the quantum of the compensation awarded by the tribunal and as such cannot be allowed to be raised by the appellant Insurance Company in the absence of grant of permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act which admittedly was never sought by the appellant Insurance Company.

10. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh v. Nicolletta Rohtagi and Ors. , while considering the grounds available to the Insuran