@ ma’mr veh§c§e imIeWed in 'rhe amident if is fri‘te fha‘l’ having “taken such a p!acz befere the M.A.C.T. if was ‘rhe onus of 'i'he Insurance £ampany‘ To esfabHsh Tha? fac? by Iagc! avidence. Admif‘redhf, Tha Insuranw Company did nef produce any cer‘rifica‘re er endorsemem from 141$ Ragienal Transpsm‘ Authoriw whish had issued fhe drivmg Hegmz in faveur 9f #he driver 9f fhe mofor vahicie invelvzd En The acsidenf 2’0 pmva ifs case. WHhouT Pesarfing to such a caurse sf swim, fha Insurancg Campmy ssugh? Te examine The Ra§iana! Transpor? Qffke? bafora fha MACT. by summenim him. in fhzri' regard aiss, an aphorsuniiy was given 1’9 The appellant Sinse fha Qagiomi Tmmpsri‘ Qfficei‘ cauid he? be pmdused befove the MACT fer examinafien, sf a iu‘rer' sfaga, fhe MA.€.T. cissed The evidence of i‘he Insumm‘e Cismpany and preceedeci to dispose sf fhe ciuim The recwc! (if fhe case. weuid cleariy shew Thai The lnsurcmce Cempany has feiied T9 discharge The burdeh inf proving The? The driver GT The moTcr vehieie invcived in The accidenT did he“? have a vaiid and effecTive driving iicence 9h The deTe m‘ accident and in ThcT View 9'? The meTTer n9 exrehTieh eouid be Taken Tc The impugned award whereby and whereunder The iiabiiiTy sf paying campenseTien is iasTened an The Ihsurance €empehy. 3. The enpeei is, Therefore, dismissed. Ne cosTsT fecu- i A “Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh vvr Sdl- Judge1¥ K Chief Justice r \_,‘ j M ”a Awqn‘i, I i i