ORDER R.J. Verma, J. 1. This is an appeal by the Insurance Company against the award dated 27-7-82 made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dewas in claim case No. 3/79 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 14, 500/- as compensation to the claimants in respect of death of three persons viz., Bheru, his wife Balibai and their daughter Raju who third as a result of accident due to collision between the bus bearing registration No. MPU-5104 and the Matador bearing registration No. MPU 6014. 2. On 20.7.78, the deceased persons Bheru, Balibai and their daughter Raju were travelling in a loading matador sitting in its hind portion which was hit by the offending bus coming from the opposite direction on Ujjain-Dewas road. As a result of this accident, the leading matadoi was thrown on its left side resulting in the death of all the three above-named occupants the rein-The claimants- applicants Janibai and Chandar who are respectively widow mother of deceased Bheru and minor son of Bheru filed the instant claim petition for compensation under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of the death of the three persons in the said motor accident against the non-applicants viz., the alleged driver of the bus Ratansingh, owner of the bus Bhanwarsingh and the appellant Insurer in respect of the bus in question. 3. The claim was resisted by the non applicants. The non-applicants Ratansingh driver and Bhanwarsingh, the owner of the offending bus filed a joint written statement wherein they denied that Ratansingh was the driver and took the plea that Ratansingh had no connection with the bus in question. However, the non-applicant Insurance Company admitted the claimant's allegation that Ratansingh was driving the bus, but took the plea inter alia that Ratansingh has no valid driving licence so as to make the Insurance Company liable. 4. After trial, of the claim case, the learned Tribunal found that the motor-accident resulting in the death of Bheru, his wife Balibai and the daughter Raju, occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus in question by its driver and that the driver who was driving the bus was not Ratansingh. The learned Tribunal, however, held the owner of the bus and the Insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay as compensation a sum of Rs. The learned Tribunal, however, held the owner of the bus and the Insurance company jointly and severally liable to pay as compensation a sum of Rs. 4, 500/- to the claimant Jainbai, mother of the deceased Bheru and a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to Chandar minor son of the deceased Bheru with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the claim petition i.e. 15.1.1979 till realisation. 5. Being aggrieved by the award, the appellant- Insurance Company has filed this appeal. 6. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended that the Insurance Company has wrongly been held liable inspite of the fact that it was not proved that the driver of the bus in question had a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. 7. The above contention of the learned Counsel, in my opinion, is of no substance in the circumstances of the case as would be presently seen. The learned Tribunal has held that Ratansingh was not driving the bus but who so ever was driving the bus was driving is at the instance of the owner non-applicant and that he was driving the bus rashly and negligently due to which the accident occurred resulting in the death of three persons above named. On such a finding the learned Tribunal has held the owner liable for the rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus who was apparently the authorised agent of the owner. The insurance Company having insured the owner in respect of the liability arising out of an accident involving the bus in question was, therefore, held liable jointly and severally with the owner. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent- claimants has referred to the pleading at paragraph 4 of the written-statement filed on behalf of the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 where it is stated thus:- BUS KA DRIVER SHURU SE HI BUS KO DHIMI GATE VA NIYANTRAN MEN CHALA RAHA THA. (emphasis laid) On the basis of this statement, learned Counsel argues that even though it has been denied that the non-applicant No. 1 Ratansingh was the driver of the bus in question at the material time, it has been admitted that the person driving the bus was the driver of the bus. (emphasis laid) On the basis of this statement, learned Counsel argues that even though it has been denied that the non-applicant No. 1 Ratansingh was the driver of the bus in question at the material time, it has been admitted that the person driving the bus was the driver of the bus. Apparently, the claimants may not have been in a position to correctly name the driver of the bus, who was actually driving the bus at the material time, at the instance of the owner, but the Insurance Company on the aforesaid pleading of the non-applicants No. 1 and 2 could have ascertained from them the name of the driver if the Insurance Company wanted to take a defence that the driver was not holding a valid licence for driving the vehicle at the material time. The Insurance Company cannot be allowed to take advantage of a lapse of its part by setting up an argument that Ratansingh as named by the claimants was not holding valid licence, without being in a position to give out the name of the driver of the bus who was actually driving the bus in question as stated in the joint written statement of the non-applicants No. 1 and 2. 9. In the result, this appeal, being without merit, fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 200/- if certified.