ORDER A.K. Gohil, J. 1. The appellant Assurance Company has preferred this appeal against the Award dated 25.9.1996 passed by Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur in Claim Case No. 20 of 1991 on the ground that since the tractor involved in the accident was not being driven by driver Bharatsingh but was being driven by the deceased himself who was not authorised to drive and was also not having a valid driving licence. Therefore, there is a breach of conditions of the policy and the Assurance Company is not liable for the payment of any amount towards the compensation and the award passed by the learned Tribunal is liable to be set aside. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are the legal heirs of deceased Nanalal. Deceased Nanalal was resident of village Nagari. Respondent No. 5 is the owner of tractor bearing registration number MPD 1224. The said tractor was under the control of respondent No. 6 and being driven by respondent No. 7 Bharatsingh. The said tractor was insured with the appellant. The claimants' case was that on 8.5.1989 at about 3.30 p.m. deceased Nanalal was in the village Nagari. Bharatsingh, driver of the tractor, who was carrying boring machine contractor asked the deceased Nanalal to accompany him to village Petlawad to locate him the well of a farmer where he had to take the tractor and machine for boring purposes. On the request of respondent No. 7 Bharatsingh, deceased Nanalal went on tractor to show him the place. The tractor was being driven rashly and negligently by respondent No. 7. When the tractor reached the place Nalkheda, from opposite direction a cyclist was coming. The driver took a short turn but could not control the tractor and in the result the tractor was turned over. Nanalal, who was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor, fell down and sustained serious injuries and died immediately. Respondents No. 1 to 4, who were the claimants, filed a claim case before the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur. After holding an enquiry, considering the various objections, pleadings and evidence of the parties, the learned Tribunal found that the said tractor was being driven by respondent No. 7 Bharatsingh and the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the said tractor, the appellant Assurance Company as well as respondent Nos. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mandsaur. After holding an enquiry, considering the various objections, pleadings and evidence of the parties, the learned Tribunal found that the said tractor was being driven by respondent No. 7 Bharatsingh and the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the said tractor, the appellant Assurance Company as well as respondent Nos. 5 to 7 are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 57,600/- to respondent Nos. 1 to 4/claimants alongwith the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of claim petition i.e. 7.11.1989 till its realisation. The Assurance Company has filed this appeal against the said award passed by the learned Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 3. I have heard the learned Counsels for the parties, perused the record and considered the arguments. 4. The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant Assurance Company is that when the accident took place, Bharatsingh was not having valid licence. Therefore, the Assurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insurer. The learned Tribunal held that at the time of accident Bharatsingh respondent No. 7 was driving the tractor involved in the accident and it was also held that the driver Bharatsingh was not having valid licence at the relevant time and Bharatsingh was helper. The learned Tribunal placed reliance on the decision in case of Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan 1987 ACJ 1411 : 1 (1987) ACC 413 (SC) in which it was observed: A truck driver left the truck with engine in motion after handing over control of the truck to the cleaner who was not a duly licensed person and the cleaner drove the truck and caused the accident. It was contended that the accident occurred when an unlicensed person was at the wheel and the Insurance Company would be exonerated from liability - whether the Insurance Company of the truck can claim immunity against the obligation to satisfy the award against the insured in respect of third party risk - Held: No; the exclusion clause does not exonerate the insurer as the insured had done everything in his power to keep, honour and fulfil the promise and is not guilty of a deliberate breach. Unless the insured is at fault and is guilty of a breach the insurer cannot escape from the obligation to indemnify the insured. Unless the insured is at fault and is guilty of a breach the insurer cannot escape from the obligation to indemnify the insured. The insured placed the vehicle in charge of a licensed driver, with express or implied mandate to drive himself, it cannot be said' that the insured is guilty of any breach. 5. Recently in the case of Smt. Shamkunwar and Ors. v. Kamalsingh and Anr. II (1999) ACC 220 the Division Bench of MP. High Court held that the onus is always on the Insurance Company to prove that the driver had no valid driving licence to escape liability of payment of compensation. As also in this case the Insurance Company is claiming exoneration on the ground of breach of the condition of the policy, the burden squarely on the Insurance Company to prove that breach has been committed by the insured, as if breach was not proved by leading evidence, the Insurance Company would fail. In this case too the Insurance Company did not examine any witness nor produce any document which could prove that the driver had no valid licence. It is true that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is that respondent No. 7 Bharatsingh, who was driving the tractor, was not having a valid licence but in view of the direct evidence on record and more particularly the statement of D.W. 2 Bharatsingh, this finding did not appear to be correct. The driver D.W. 2 Bharatsingh/respondent No. 7 has admitted in his statement that on the day of incident he was having a driving licence but he could not produce the same as the same was lost. In view of this clear evidence the finding of the Tribunal to the extent that Bharatsingh was not having a licence is held to be not correct and the same is treated to be modified. In the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Shamkunwr{supta.), it has been held that mere non-production of licence by driver does not exonerate Insurance Company. The burden, which was on the Insurance Company, can never be shifted on others. this Court in case of Smt. Shamkunwar (supra), under the similar circumstances, did not exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability of paying compensation on the ground that the driver did not produce his driving licence. The burden, which was on the Insurance Company, can never be shifted on others. this Court in case of Smt. Shamkunwar (supra), under the similar circumstances, did not exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability of paying compensation on the ground that the driver did not produce his driving licence. The finding of the learned Tribunal is modified to the extent and it is held that the respondent No 7 Bharatsmgh was having a driving licence on the day of accident. I, therefore, hold that the Insurance Company failed to prove the breach of the conditions of the Insurance Policy, hence, it was liable to indemnify the insured. The learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding the Insurance Company liable jointly and severally for the payment of the compensation. 6. In view of the aforesaid reasonings, I do not see any case for interference in the appeal and the result is that the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents/claimants. The liability of the appellant and respondent Nos 5 and 6 is 50% - 50%. The appellant and respondent Nos. 5 and 6 shall deposit the amount of award within a period of 60 days from the date of this order otherwise they shall be liable for the payment of interest @ 18% per annum on the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed. Record be returned.