ORDER Shambhoo Singh, J. 1. This judgment shall govern the disposal of M.A. Nos. 340, 341 of 2000 and M.A. Nos. 358 to 390 of 2000 and Civil Revision Nos. 216 to 228 of 2000 filed by the non-appticant/New India Insurance Co., challenging the impugned awards passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ratlam on 16-9-99 in Claim Cases Nos. 71, 125, 106, 62, 64, 88, 63, 110, 97, 117, 152, 150, 89, 90, 147, 116, 47, 100, 103, 92, 66, 59, 155, 91, 76, 102, 79, 69, 73, 68, 104, 61, 120, 60, 108 and 98, 96, 67, 154, 115, 111, 145, 80, 109, 95, 144, 148, 54 of 1997. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 19-12-97 Sumit Travel's bus No. M.P. 14/8585 driven by respondent/non-applicant Rajaram @ Raju, owned by respondent/non-applicant No. 2 Manoharlal and insured with respondent No. 3, at about 12:30 p.m., on the bridge of Jhaman river, on Rawati-Shivgarh road fell down in the river, as a result of which nine passengers died and several passengers sustained serious injuries. The L.Rs. of the deceased persons and injured persons filed claim cases. The case of the respondents/claimants was that the non-applicant driver drove the bus in rash and negligent manner, as a result of which it turned turtle on the bridge and fell down in Jhaman river. The driver Rajaram @ Raju remained absent and was proceeded ex-parte in all claim cases. Respondents owner and Insurance Co. inter alia took the defence that driver Rajaram had no valid driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, it was not liable to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. It negativing the case of the Insurance Co., held that Rajaram was having valid driving licence and awarded compensation to the claimants. Hence, these appeals and revisions. 3. Shri Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Co., submitted that the learned Tribunal committed error in holding that the respondent/non-applicant Rajaram was having valid licence. He submitted that the licence produced by Rajaram was issued from the office of R.T.O., Jhansi in the year 1993, the number of which was 1495. On enquiry, the R.T.O., Jhansi informed that this licence was not issued to Rajaram from his office and it was fake one. He submitted that the licence produced by Rajaram was issued from the office of R.T.O., Jhansi in the year 1993, the number of which was 1495. On enquiry, the R.T.O., Jhansi informed that this licence was not issued to Rajaram from his office and it was fake one. This licence was wrongly renewed by R.T.O., Mandsaur. He submitted that the fake licence on renewal, does not become valid licence and under such circumstances, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation as the respondent-owner committed breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. On the other hand, Shri C.L. Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents, supported the impugned award and submitted that Rajaram was having genuine licence and it was renewed by R.T.O., Mandsaur from time to time. 4. We considered the argument advanced by learned counsel for both sides and perused the record. Admittedly, driving licence R-8207-Jhansi-15388, the duplicate copy of which is Ex. D-3A, was issued on 11-10-93 by R.T.O., Jhansi. This licence was renewed from 15-3-88 to 14-3-91, 15-3-91 to 14-3-94 and 16-3-94 to 15-3-97 by R.T.O., Mandsaur. The appellant produced certificate Ex. C-1 of R.T.O., Jhansi which stated that this licence was not issued to Rajaram from his office, this licence was then sent to R.T.O., Jhansi for his report by the Tribunal. Thereupon the R.T.O., Jhansi sent certificate Ex. CD-1 and certified that this licence was issued from his office to Rajaram s/o Nandram. In view of these two contrary certificates, Regional Transport Inspector, Jhansi Shri Yogendra Kumar was examined on commission. At the lime of examination, the page of the licence register which contained the entry of issuance of this licence was found torn. Under such circumstances, R.T.I, could not say whether this licence was issued by his office or not. But, the certificate Ex. CD-1 sent by R.T.O. clearly shows that this licence was issued to Rajaram. The burden of proving that the driver had no valid driving licence, was on the Insurance Co., which it failed to discharge. On the other hand, the bus owner Manoharlal deposed that before engaging Rajaram he inspected his licence, he went to the office of R.T.O., Mandsaur and made verification. He was told by R.T.O. Office that the licence of Rajaram No. 1495 was issued on 11-10-93 and it was renewed from time to time and lastly up to 15-3-97. On the other hand, the bus owner Manoharlal deposed that before engaging Rajaram he inspected his licence, he went to the office of R.T.O., Mandsaur and made verification. He was told by R.T.O. Office that the licence of Rajaram No. 1495 was issued on 11-10-93 and it was renewed from time to time and lastly up to 15-3-97. Thereafter he engaged him driver on his bus..He further stated that Rajaram was driving the passenger-bus Jaora-Piploda. 5. It appears that after issuance of the certificate Ex. CD-1 the relevant page of the licence register was torn by someone. Be as it may, the certificate of the R.T.O., Jhansi Ex. CD-1 makes it clear that this licence was issued from the office of R.T.O., Jhansi and this licence was renewed from time to time by R.T.O., Mandsaur. It is presumed that at the time of renewal, the R.T.O., Mandsaur examined the driving licence issued by R.T.O., Jhansi and after being satisfied about the genuineness of the licence, he renewed it from time to time. It is, thus, clear that the licence Ex. D-3A is genuine licence. The learned Tribunal rightly held that the respondent No. 1 Rajaram was having valid driving licence at the time of accident. 6. Even otherwise, the appellant cannot be absolved from its liability of paying compensation to the respondent-claimants who are third parties. Though it is not expected of the bus owner to make detailed verification from the licensing authorities from where the licence was issued and renewed before engaging him as driver but in this case, the owner made detailed enquiry and verifications from the R.T.O., Mandsaur who had renewed the licence of Rajaram from time to time. He had also seen Rajaram driving other passenger buses. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 2 committed breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 7. Shri Dandwate, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that this Court should decide whether the fake driving licence, if renewed, would get validated or not as this point often arises and there is no decision of this Court on this point. We are unable to accept this prayer. The Court has to decide the law point involved in the case and raised before it. We are unable to accept this prayer. The Court has to decide the law point involved in the case and raised before it. As stated earlier, it has not been proved that the licence of Rajaram was fake one and it is also not the contention of the respondents that this licence became valid on renewal by R.T.O., Mandsaur. If we express our opinion as prayed by Shri Dandwate, it will be obiter and not binding precedent. 8. In the result, all Misc. Appeals and Civil Revisions have no substance and they are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 9. Misc. Appeal dismissed.