( 1 ) THIS order will also govern M. A. Nos. 36, 37, 38, 39, 41 and 42 of 2001. Being aggrieved by the award dated 31. 7. 2000 passed in Claim Case No. 6 of 1991 by 1st M. A. C. T. , Katni, whereby the award has been granted in favour of the claimants, the present appeal has been filed by appellant insurance company.

( 2 ) SHORT facts of the case are that the appellant filed this appeal on the ground that on the date of accident, i. e. , 14. 12. 1990, 12 passengers were travelling in the offending truck which was in violation of rule 111 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, 1974 (which shall be referred hereinafter as 'the Rules' ). It was further challenged on the ground that driver, respondent No. 3, was having a fake driving licence.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant mr. S. K. Rao submits that while holding the appellant responsible for the awarded amount, learned Tribunal has committed error in holding that the documentary evidence produced by the appellant insurance company to prove the licence fake is not admissible in evidence. Learned counsel further submits that since the passengers were travelling in a goods vehicle, therefore, insurance company has been wron