JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 22.8.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (here-in-after referred to as the Tribunal), Jaipur in Claim Application No.141/96 wherein an amount of Rs. 5,61,820/- with interest had been passed in favour of the claimants on account of the death of one deceased Alamgir Khan, who died in the accident on 29.6.2000. The claim application was filed by the widow aged about 30 years at the time of filing of the application and son and two minor daughters as well the parents. The deceased, aged about 35 years, was a driver on bus No. RNP 2144. In the said bus there were two drivers driving the bus because of the long journey, however, it has been found that the bus was being driven by one Pyarelal at the time when the bus had met with an accident because of the negligent driving. It had collided with the truck No. GJ-3U-5191 causing injuries to the passengers and death to deceased Alamgir Khan. FIR No. 472/96 was recorded. After framing the necessary issues in regard to negligence and quantum of compensation and also on the objections taken by the insurance company, the Tribunal had come to the finding that the bus was being driven by Pyarelal driver No.2 and he was found to be negligent as he had struck the bus by going to the wrong side with the truck. The Tribunal had assessed the income at Rs. 3,500/- p.m. and taking the dependency to be of Rs. 2,705/- p.m. and applying the multiplier of 17 had assessed the total compensation by adding misc. expenditure as well. 2. The contention of the appellant is that Pyarelal who was admittedly driver of the bus was not having a valid licence and for that purpose the counsel relies on the statement of witness i.e. Khemraj clerk of the office who was produced as NAW-2 who had stated that he had given a certificate Ex.NAW-1 which bears the signatures and that he was working as UDC in the office. He admits that he was not authorised to issue any such certificate. He admits that he was not authorised to issue any such certificate. He also relies on the statement of Mangi Lal NAW-3 to the effect that he was engaged by the insurance company to verify the licence No. RJ-18-34496 and that he had visited the office of the District Transport Officer, Jhunjhunu and had obtained a certificate from the clerk to the effect that the licence belonged to one Pyarelal son of Jai Karandas, which was valid upto 2015 and that the licence was for light motor vehicle. 3. The Tribunal had held that the appellant has not discharged the burden of proving that the licence was not valid. The Insurance company had failed to produce or summon the concerned officer with the record of the office of the DTO about the validity of the licence. The Insurance Company wanted to rely on the certificate given by the clerk without the original record being brought before the court. The clerk even though produced as witness was not authorised to issue such a certificate which is an admitted fact. In alternative, counsel for the appellant states that they had made an investigation through a private agency and the witnesses had been produced who had made the private investigation. The contention of the counsel cannot be accepted for the reasons that the direct evidence which was available and could be summoned was not produced. Only because the insurance company had produced a witness who had made certain private investigation or a clerk who was not authorised to issue certificate, it cannot be said that the onus has been discharged by the insurance company to prove that the licence was not valid. The validity of the licence, when the insurance company had the complete details with it, could only be proved by way of summoning the original record or such register where such entries are made through an official of that office, which had admittedly not been done. In such circumstances, finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company had failed to discharge the onus cannot be said to be unjustified or unwarranted and are upheld.There is no merit in the civil misc. appeal and the same is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******