JUDGMENT J.G. Chitre, J. 1. The short point involved in this appeal is whether the Insurance Company, respondent No. 3, can be exonerated from the liability of paying compensation to the claimants so far as the present proceeding is concerned. 2. Mr. Siddique, learned Counsel appearing for appellant has pointed out that at the relevant time the driver of truck bearing number CPF 8273 was having a valid licence and evidence on record proves abundantly that he was driving the said truck rashly and negligently when the said accident took place. Mr. A.H. Khan appearing for the Insurance Company pointed out that the said licence could not be produced at the time of hearing of claim case because the said driver had not produced it. Mr. Siddique argued that when the driver did not appear and did not contest the said proceeding, it was not possible for the appellant to procure the said licence from the driver of the said vehicle and to keep it on record. 3. It is to be noted that the matters which are arising out of accidents caused by motor vehicles are to be decided in view of provisions of Motor Vehicles Act and have to be decided with different approach because the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicles Act are benevolent and meant for the purpose of giving solace to the victims who are unnecessarily required to suffer the consequences of the accident. 4. So far as the present appeal is concerned, Mr. Siddique has pointed out that the driver of the said truck had appeared in the appeal and produced his licence which supports his argument that at the time of said accident the driver was having a valid licence. 5. In view of provisions of Section 90 of M.V. Act it was for the Insurance Company to raise such a plea and to adduce evidence in support of that. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter Narcinva V. Kamath and Anr. v. Alfred Do Martins and Ors. 1985 A.C.J. 397 : II (1985) ACC 34 (SC), wherein Supreme Court held that the onus is on the Insurance Company to prove that the driver had no driving licence for the purpose of escaping the liability of paying compensation to the claimant. v. Alfred Do Martins and Ors. 1985 A.C.J. 397 : II (1985) ACC 34 (SC), wherein Supreme Court held that the onus is on the Insurance Company to prove that the driver had no driving licence for the purpose of escaping the liability of paying compensation to the claimant. The Supreme Court further held in the said matter that mere non-production of licence by the d river does not exonerate the Insurance Company and it stands liable to indemnify the award. 6. The learned Tribunal committed error in concluding that as the driver did not produce the licence, it should not be held that the said driver was having the licence when the said accident took place. The Tribunal should have come to the conclusion that burden was on Insurance Company to establish that at the time of said accident the driver of the said vehicle was not having a valid driving licence. In the result, the Tribunal landed in error of exonerating the Insurance Company, respondent No. 3 from paying compensation to the claimant. Therefore, that portion of the impugned award stands set aside and the award stands suitably modified as mentioned below. 7. Respondents 1, 2 and 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and the amount indicated by the award which has been passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ujjain in the matter of Claim Case No. 3/81 dated 26.11.84. The award be suitably modified. No order as to costs in view of the circumstances of the matter. s