Short Note : 1. Respondent No. 1 Kanakmal widow of K.N. Veeraswami, filed an application under section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act 1939, claiming compensation in respect to the death of her husband K.N. Veeraswami as a result of an accident which took place on 14-5-1966, at about 10-45 a.m. The deceased was travelling in a passenger bus No. MPE 7925 from Ujjain to Indore. This bus is owned by the appellant and was being driven by Ramsingh, who was non-applicant No. 1 before the Tribunal but has not been impleaded as a party to the present appeal when the bus had covered a distance of about 6-7 miles from Ujjain towards Indore, it had dashed against a tree on the roadside. The deceased Veerawami got serious injuries in that accident and was removed to the Government Hospital at Ujjain in an unconscious condition. He, however, succumbed to the injuries the very night, i.e. intervening 14-5-1966 and 15-5-1966, at about 3-30 a.m. The allegation in the claim petition was that this accident was as a result of the excessive speed and rash and negligent driving by Ramsingh who was then driving the vehicle. In the petition it also was stated that the said Ramsingh did not have a driving licence and with that knowledge the owner, i.e., the appellant permitted him to drive that bus. 2. The Tribunal, held that the compensation of Rs. 6,480 is payable to the widow Kanakmal only by non-applicants 1 and 2, i.e. the present appellant and Ramsingh, who was then driving the vehicle and who has not been added as a party to the present appeal. Held : In our opinion, these submissions have absolutely no merit. The appellant has chosen not to examine Ramsingh, who at the relevant lime, was driving the vehicle. He did not examine even the cleaner who according to Mohammad Badshah (A.W.1), was at that time in the vehicle. No other passenger was also examined. Mohammad Badshah (AW1) has, in his evidence, stated that the driver was driving the vehicle in an excessive speed. The vehicle had dashed against a tree which is said to be according to Mohammad Badshah (A.W.1), at a distance of about more than 4 feet from the side path of the road. The manner of this accident clearly attracts the principles of res ipsa loquitor. The vehicle had dashed against a tree which is said to be according to Mohammad Badshah (A.W.1), at a distance of about more than 4 feet from the side path of the road. The manner of this accident clearly attracts the principles of res ipsa loquitor. In these circumstances, the inference of rash and negligent driving, as has been drawn by the tribunal, is fully justified. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further argued that it was for the claimant-respondent No. 1 to prove that the person driving the vehicle did not possess the driving licence. In the claim petition it was stated that the driver did not possess the driving licence. In reply to this, the appellant had denied it. If, therefore, the person driving the vehicle, i.e., Ramsingh possessed a driving licence, it was for the appellant to have proved that fact and this could have been easily done by summoning the record from the R.T.O. office. It can also be inferred that the owner of the vehicle would certainly know as to whether the person to whom he is employing as a driver to drive a vehicle possesses the required driving licence or not. Therefore, there is no escape to the appellant on this question also and it has to be held that the person driving the vehicle did not possess the driving licence. 4. As regards the liability of the Insurance Company (respondent No. 2), learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Company, while referring to Ex. N.A. 3/1, i.e., the Insurance Policy, brought to out notice the following clause :- "Provided that the person driving holds a licence to drive the motor vehicle or has held and not disqualified for holding or obtaining such a licence." 5. On behalf of the Insurance Company, it was fairly urged that even now if the appellant can satisfy about this condition, the Company would readily agree to shoulder the responsibility to the extent of Rs. 2,000/-. However, learned counsel for the appellant stated that he does not want to avail of this opportunity. In these circumstances, the question of fixing any liability on the Insurance Company does not at all arise. Appeal dismissed.