IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE: BILASPUR D.B: HON'Bl-E SHro S.R. NAYAK, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. Misc,Apfieal ,98QF2005 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS The National Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Office, Mobin K4ahal, G.E. Road, Raipur Through: Assistant Manager Branch Bilaspur, Bilaspur Versus 1. Smt. Prabha Dhankar Aged 22 years, Wd/o Rameshwar Dhankar 2. Bholasingh, aged 53 yrs. S/o Natthuram 3. Kumari Chitrarekha Aged 18 yrs, D/o Bholasingh (All above three resldent of Shankarpur Ward No. 7, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon.) 4. Nandkumar S/o Rajaram, Aged 45 yrs. fTruck Driver) R/o Arang, P.S. Arang, District- Raipur (C.G.) 5. Narsingh Agrawal, S/o N.L. Agrawal (Truck Owner) R/o Mandir Hasaud, P.S. Mandir Hasaud, District- Raipur (C.G.) Present: Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawal, Sr. Advocate wittt Mr. A.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. -^ 7. •"> ORALORDER (Passed on 6 December 2005) In this appeal praferred by the Insurance Company, It is the contention of ttie leamed standing counsel for the Insurance Company ttiat since the driver of <he Motor Vehicle involved in the accldent and insured by the appellant Insurance Company, on ttie date of the accident, did not have effecUve and valid driving license and therefore, the liabilHy to pay compensation should not have been fastened in terms of the Company. This contention does not merit our acceptance. AHhough the above contentton was raised in the statement of objection filed by the Insurance Company to the claim petiUon, the Insurance Company has not adduced any evklence to support that plea. It is well settled position in law that if an Insurance Company seeks to avoid liability of paying compensation on the ground that the driver of the motor vehicle involved in tte accident did not have valid and effiecUve license to drh/e the motor vehicle invoh/ed in the accident, then, it is ite burden to prove ttiat fact by adducing legal evidence. Since in the instant case, ttie Insurance Company has faitod to establish that fact by adducing legal evidence, it cannot avokl liability of paying compensatten. The appeal is meriUess and it is accordingly dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice S(V- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge V^.\effi.