H.S.BHALLA, J. MACA NO.275 OF 2009 (Decided on 02.12.2010) ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. ……….. Appellant. .Vrs. KARUNAKAR PRADHAN & ORS. ……… Respondents. MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 (ACT NO.59 OF 1988) – SECS.147, 149. For Appellant - M/s. P.Mishra & Associates. For Respondents – None H.S.BHALLA, J. This appeal is directed against award dated 7.1.2009 passed by 1st M.A.C.T., Keonjhar (hereinafter referred to an “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. No.130 of 2004 by virtue of which the claim petition filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Karunakar Pradhan, who died in a motor vehicular accident, was allowed, the relevant portion of which reads as under:- “ The M.A.C. Case is allowed on contest against O.P.No.2 and ex parte against O.P. no.1, with a cost of Rs.300/- to be paid by O.P. no.2 to petitioners. O.p.no.2 is directed to pay compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- (rupees one lakh seventy eight thousand eight hundred) only with cost to petitioners within two months of this order along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application till the date of payment 90% of this amount including interest shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the petitioners in any Nationalized Bank for a period of five years, monthly interest being payable to petitioners regularly. The balance amount with interest be paid to the petitioners. The bank shall not allow any loan to be raised treating this deposit as security nor it shall allow any prematured payment of the same. Separate cheques be issued accordingly. O.P. No.2 shall furnish along with the cheques the detailed calculations of the amount covered by these cheques.” 2. Since the liability of the appellant to pay the amount of compensation was fastened by the Tribunal, the appellant challenged the findings of the Tribunal by filing the present appeal before this Court. 3. The detailed facts have already been recapitulated in the award of the Tribunal and in order to avoid repetition, the same are not being reproduced herein. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argues that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and since he was not holding a valid driving licence, the appellant is liable to be exonerated. 5. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard and for the reasons to be recorded by me hereinafter, I find that the same is liable to be noticed only for the sake of rejection. 6. In the instance case, the appellant has categorically pleaded in its written statement that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence, but in order to escape the liability, the instance company is not only required to prove that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident but also to prove that the driver was disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence or that he never had any licence at all. It is conceded by learned counsel for the appellant that onus of proving that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence or disqualified from holding the licence is on the Insurance Company. It is for the Insurance Company to prove that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of accident by bringing the relevant documents, i.e., extracts from the Road Transport Authority or District Transport Officer or certificate to the effect that the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not issued with a licence at all. The apex Court in the case Narchinya Kamat v. Alfredo Antonio Deo Martins, 1985 ACJ 397 (SC) has held that whenever the Insurance Company pleads a breach of the condition of policy by pleading that the driver had no driving licence at the time of the accident, the onus is on the Insurance Company to prove that fact. The onus is always on the Insurance Company to prove that the driver had no driving licence to escape the liability. To my mind, the Insurance Company even can not contend that only because the driver failed to produce licence when asked to do so in cross examination, adverse inference should be drawn against the driver. In the instant case, on the strength of evidence finding has been recorded by the learned Tribunal that the driver was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident. 7. In view of the settled law that onus to prove that the driver had no licence is on the Insurance Company, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant has no force when he argues that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident, particularly when no evidence was led by the Insurance Company. No efforts were made by the Insurance Company to prove on record that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident in order to prove that he was disqualified or holding valid licence at the time of accident. 8. In the light of what has been observed above, the appeal filed by the appellant, being without any merit, fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the awarded amount along with interest before the Tribunal within two months after deducting the amount already paid to the claimant under Section 140 of the M.V. Act, if any. On deposit of the awarded amount, the statutory deposit kept in deposit in this Court shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. Appeal dismissed. 2