The central legal point established is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that the vehicle is driven by a licensed driver and the burden of proof on the insurance company to establish the owner's negligence.

( 1 ) THE owner appellant, aggrieved by the award dated 2. 2. 2001 passed in Claim Case No. 15 of 2000 by the Second Additional Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Shahdol (in short, 'the tribunal') has preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Act' ).

( 2 ) THE facts which are essential to be stated are that the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 as claimants preferred the application for grant of compensation of Rs. 24,30,000 before the Tribunal for the death of Kailash prasad Kori, the husband of the respondent No. 1 and father of respondent No. 3 and son of respondent No. 2 on the ground that he died in a vehicular accident on 16. 3. 99, while he was working as a cleaner in the vehicle bearing registration No. MP 020-D 0953. It was urged before the Tribunal that he was aged about 24 years and was getting Rs. 2,800 from the job of the cleaner and doing the work of carpenter and contributing Rs. 1,500 per month to the family. It was further urged that he would have lived up to 80 years of age and hence, the amount of Rs. 24,30,000 was awardable as compensation.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT Nos. 4 and 5 therein filed their written statement before the Tribunal putting the entire blame on the owner. The owner appellant filed his objection stating, inter alia, that deceased was not working as a cleaner in the vehicle in question and in any case, if he was found liable the vehicle being insured, the insurance company would be liable to indemnify the owner.

( 4 ) THE insurer, controverting the claim, put forth a stand that there had been breach of terms and conditions of the policy and hence, it was not liable to be saddled with the liability.

( 5 ) CLAIMS Tribunal framed number of issues and came to hold that the deceased was working as a cleaner in the offending vehicle; that the accident had occurred due to negligence of the driver, Ajay Kumar, that claimants were entitled to get sum of rs. 2,04,000 as compensation; that on the date of accident the driver did not possess the licence and hence the insurance company was entitled to be exonerated; and that the owner was liable to pay the amount of compensation along with 12 per cent interest.

( 6 ) MR. Suyash Tripathi and Mr. Vikas jain, learned counsel for appellant have raised a singular contention that the Tribunal has fallen into grave error by fastening the liability on the owner singularly on the basis that the driver did not have a proper licence on the date of accident. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision rendered in the case of national Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), to buttress their submission that non-possession of licence on the date of accident was not fatal to the stand of the owner especially when the licence was valid prior to the accident and was renewed thereafter.

( 7 ) MR. S. K. Rao, learned counsel being assisted by Mr. Liyaquat Ullah, for the respondent insurer contended that it was a fake licence. It is submitted that insurance company has discharged the onus as the owner had not taken adequate care to check the genuineness of the licence produced by the driver. Mr. S. K. Rao, learned counsel has submitted that when the licence was found to be fake by the Tribunal, it has rightly exonerated the insurance company and hence no fault can be found with it. ( 8 ) THE question that emerges for consideration is whether in the obtaining factual matrix the Tribunal is justified in not mulcting the liability on the insurer. It is worth noting that the licence has been brought on record as Exh. D1. The said licence was referred to the office of the additional Regional Transport Officer at shahdol and it was found to be fake. Submission of Mr. Tripathi and Mr. Jain is that the owner had verified the licence and on prima facie scrutiny found it to be correct and there was nothing to show that it was interpolated and not a genuine one. In the case of Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC),