J U D G M E N T

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1287 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/III Additional Sub Court, Madurai.

2. The appellant/insurer, who was made liable to pay compensation of Rs.51,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum to the first respondent/claimant for the disability suffered by him, consequent to an accident occurred on 09.05.2009, challenged the liability mulcted on it.

3. The main contention of the appellant/insurer is that the two wheeler rider was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident and that despite proving the said factum, the Tribunal erred in mulcting liability on the appellant/insurer.

4. The only point that arises for consideration is that as to whether the Tribunal erred in mulcting entire liability on the appellant/insurer, despite showing that the two wheeler rider was not possessing valid driving license at the time of accident ?

5. The appellant/insurer in order to prove their defence has summoned and examined the staff attached to the Motor Vehicle Inspector Grade-I, Unit Office, Thirumangalam as R.W.1 and its own official Mr.Arumugam, Executive Officer as R.W.2.

6. R.W.1 in his evidence would say that the two wheeler rider Pitchai has not taken any driving license from their Office till 09.05.2009 and he has produced the letter sent by the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Grade-I, Unit Office, Thirumangalam as Ex.R.1, whereunder it has been specifically stated that on verification of their office records, they came to know that driving license has not been issued in favour of Thiru.Pitchai, S/o.Palchamy and has no valid driving license as on 09.05.2009. No doubt, in cross examination, R.W.1 would say that in case, if the two wheeler rider had obtained license from any other Regional Transport Office, the same does not find place in their office records.

7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, the Tribunal mainly relying on the above evidence of R.W.1, has come to a decision that the insurer has failed to prove that the two wheeler rider was not possessing driving license at the time of accident. At this juncture, it is necessary to refer the judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Thanjavur Vs. G.Ramasamy and another reported in

2000 3 L.W. 613, “ In the present case, the Insurance Company has taken pains to produce licence of the driver who is alleged to have driven the vehicle (motor cycle) and also examined an officer from the Regional Transport Office. The said witness has also deposed that there is no endorsement or issuance of any licence in favour of the driver. "Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the Insurance Company having produced licence which does not disclose the required endorsement, I ar? inclined to hold that the Insurance Company had discharged its burden. It is impossible and unrealistic to expect anything more to be done by the Insurance Company. To expect the Insurance Company to verify from all the Regional Transport Offices throughout the State or the country in order to establish that the driver had no licence, would be an impossible and impractical expectation. It should be remembered that the Insurance companies are public institutions and imposition of any unreasonable burden of proof would only result in the claimants and the owner of the vehicles colluding together and placing the Insurance Company in a very impossible situation. Such a situation cannot at all be appreciated. It has to borne in mind that under normal circumstances, it is for the person who claims to have a valid licence to produce the same. Motor Vehicles Act imposes a duty on the Insurance company to furnish sufficient material to show that the driver has no proper licence, which burden would be discharged either by producing a licence which does not contain any endorsement to drive a particular type of vehicle, or a report or an official wit