HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 565 of 2005 AppeUant The Oriental Insurance Coin. Ltd. Through Divisional Maaagcr, Maldiv Nagar, Durg (C.G.). Versus Respondents 1. Gurubachan Singh S/o Tara Singh, aged 51 years, New Sau.ti Nagar, Thaaa Mohan Nagar, District- Diir$ (C.G.) (AppUcaiit). 2. Punurani, S/o Sitaraui, aged 56 years, R/o Sikola Bhata, Near House ofWard Member, Tahsil aad District- Dui^ (C.G.). 3. Hajari Lal Yadav, S/o Puraa Lal Yadav, R/o Sikola Bhata, Darudha Road, Dui^, Thaaa Mohan N^ar, District- Dui^ (C.G.) DB: Hoa'ble ShriJustice S. R. Nayak, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Justice Satish K. Agaihotri, J. Mr. Avinasli Mishra, Advocate for fhe appenant. ORAL ORDER ( 5th December 2005) The foUo^tTitg order ofthe Court was passed by S. R. Nayak, C.J. This is an appeal preferred by the Insurance Coiiipany. The award is assailed on fhe ground fhat the driver ofthe niotor vehicle iuvolved in fhe accident oa fhe date of iacident did not have valid aad effecti.ve driving licence. In the first place, it needs to be noticed that fh.e Tribunal haviag considered oral and docuiaentaiy evidence has recorded a finding that the dnver of the uiotor vehicle mvolved ia fhe accident was haviag the valid and effective drivhig Ucence. Be that as it inay, if fhe Insurance Conipany wanted to be exonerated froin the UabiLity to pay conipensation on fhe ground that fhe driver offhe inotor vehicle involved in the accident did not Iiave valid and efFective driviag liceuce, it should have pleaded and proved by substantive legal evidence fhat fact. The Insuraace Conipany has not adduced any evidence to prove that as on the date of accident fhe driver of fhe uiotor vehicle involved m. Uae accident did not have valid and effective driving licence. Therefore, the defence now raise for flie Insurance Corupany to excinpt it froin Uabilily of paying compensation is nifaconceived and caanot be countenensed. The appeal is therefcisjlismissed. No costs. Sd/- --—~ Satish K. Agnihotri Sd/- Chiet Justice Judge '"l-iakur