JUDGMENT S.B. Sakrikar, J. 1. This judgment shall also govern the disposal of Misc. Appeal No. 53/90; United India Insurance Co. v. Durgesh and Ors., as these two appeals arise out of common Award and involve common question of law for decision. 2. Unsuccessful appellant United India Insurance Co. has directed above two appeals against the common Award dated 14th Oct., 1989, passed by Additional M.A.C.T., Jhabua in Claim Case Nos. 7/87 and 8/87, thereby granting compensation of Rs. 75,200/- and Rs. 10,000/- respectively in favour of the appellant, Leelabai and Ors- in Claim Case No. 7/87 and claimant Durgesh in Claim Case No. 8/87 together with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of Claim Petition till realisation of the amount. 3. The facts lie in a narrow compass. That on llth May, 86 deceased Bhagirath alongwith respondent, Bhupendra Singh and other labourers were going on a tractor attached with the trolley bearing registration No. RJH 1522 from Village Semlia to bring some agricultural equipment of respondent Bhupendra Singh. The vechicle in question was being driven by respondent No. 3, Dayalsingh and respondent, Bhupendra Singh was the registered owner thereof. The vehicle was insured with the appellant on the date of accident. It is said that due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, it met with an accident. Bhagirath and Durgesh sustained injuries in the accident. Bhagirath expired as a result of injuries caused in the accident. Legal Representatives of Bhagirath and respondent, Durgesh filed separate claim petitions for the award of compensation. Both the claim petitions were heard (sic.) by a common award. Aggrieved by the award, the appellant has filed these appeals. 4. I have heard Mr. Dandwate learned Counsel for the appellant in both the appeals. None appeared for the respondents. 5. At the time of arguments, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, has stated that he does not want to press these appeals on the ground that the deceased Bhagirath and respondent Durgesh were travelling in the vehicle in question as passengers and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation. Learned Counsel contended that the appellant raised the objection in his reply that the respondent Dayalsingh who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, had no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. Learned Counsel contended that the appellant raised the objection in his reply that the respondent Dayalsingh who was driving the vehicle at the relevant time, had no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. The appellant in order to prove the above fact has given written notices to respondent Bhupendra Singh (owner of the vehicle) and Dayalsingh (driver of the vehicle) for production of driving licence in Court. On receipt of such notices, they did not produce the valid licence and in the above circumstances, the burden of proof of holding the valid licence on the date of accident shifts on the respondents. The respondent/ claimants have not led any evidence on the point of presence of valid licence with respondent/driver Dayalsingh on the date of accidentand therefore, the Tribunal should have drawn adverse inference against the owner and the driver and should have hold that driver Dayalsingh had no valid licence for driving the Vehicle at the relevant time and in the above circumstances should have exonerated the appellant Insurance Company from the payment of compensation amount. Learned Counsel in support of his contention relied on a decision of Madras High Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sugantha. Kunthalambai and Ors. (1981) ACJ 302. 6. I have carefully perused the record of the case and considered the evid ence led by the parties. On perusal of the record, it is found that the appellant in its written statement, has taken the objection that driver Dayalsingh had no valid driving licence at the relevant time and therefore, initial burden lies on the appellant to prove the above fact by adducing necessary evidence. In support of their contention, the Insurance Company has not led any positive evidence to discharge above burden. The appellant has only served notices on respondents Bhupendra Singh and Dayalsingh forproduction of the driving licence which was not complied with by the respondents. In my view by only serving with the notices on owner and the driver burden of proof of holding of valid licence is not shifted on the respondents. This Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Devidas and Ors. reported in 1986 ACJ 312: II (1985) ACC153 M.P., has held as under: In instant case, the insurer except giving notice for production of the licence, has done nothing to discharge the burden. This Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Devidas and Ors. reported in 1986 ACJ 312: II (1985) ACC153 M.P., has held as under: In instant case, the insurer except giving notice for production of the licence, has done nothing to discharge the burden. Shrikrishna as N.A. No. 1 examined by the insurer is silent on the question of truck driver being without driving licence. No attempt was made to examine the truck driver or to examine any one from the office of the RTO, Indore in order to find out whether the truck driver was licensed for truck driving. The presumption is that persons act in obedience to the law of the land. Therefore, on the material on record, it has to be held that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal on the issue of licence is proper. 7. Similar view was taken by the Apex Court in Narcinva V. Kamat and Anr. v. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins and Ors. as reported in 1985 ACJ 397: II (1985) ACC 34. The Apex Court has held as under: The burden to prove that there was breach of the contract of insurance was squarely placed on the shoulders of the insurance company. It could not be said to have been discharged by it by a mere question in cross-examination. The second appellant was under no obligation to furnish evidence so as to enable the Insurance Company to riggle out of its liability under the con tract of insurance. Further RTA which issues the driving licence keeps a record of the licences issued and renewed by it. The Insurance Company could have got the evidence produced to substantiate his allegation. 8. In 1983 MPWN Note No. 91; National Insurance Co. v. Thakurdas; the Division Bench of this Court has held as under: The onus of proving that the driver of the vehicle did not have a, valid licence to drive the vehicle will squarely lie on the Insurance Company because it is the Insurance Company which seeks to avoid its liability under the policy on the ground that the terms of the policy had been violated. Therefore, it wasnecessary for the appellant to lead the evidence on that point. 9. Therefore, it wasnecessary for the appellant to lead the evidence on that point. 9. In view of the above authorities of this Court as well as of the Apex Court, the contention of the Counsel for the appellant, cannot be accepted. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be exonerated from the payment of compensation amount as awarded by the Tribunal. The findings of the Tribunal on issue No. 4 in Claim Petition No. 7/87 and on issue No. 2 in Claim Petition No. 8/87, are well founded and require no interference in these appeals. 10. Consequently, both these appeals filed on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company are devoid of any merit and the same are accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs. 11. Copy of this Judgment be placed in the record of connected Appeal No. 53/90.