JUDGMENT 1. - This civil misc. appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 4.8.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kotputli in Claim Case No. 178/92 by which award the Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest. 2. The claimants have come up for enhancement. The claimants are the legal representatives of Mohd. Azim who had died because of the accident on 8.5.1991, when tractor No. RND 8733, being driven by respondent No. 1 had hit him when he was standing near his Maruti Van No. DL 3C 1640. Initially the deceased had suffered injuries but later on died. The private respondent had not appeared and they were proceeded ex parte. Issues in regard to accident, negligence and compensation were framed. An award of Rs. 2,00,000/- was passed to be recovered jointly and severally. It is the case of the appellant that the Tribunal had erred in awarding less the compensation and they were entitled to the higher compensation. Another grievance has been made to the effect that the insurance company could not be exonerated. At the time of the arguments, the argument in regard to enhancement has not been pressed, however, it was stated that the insurance company ought to have been held liable and for the reasons reliance is placed on Civil Misc. Appeal No. 726/99 New India Assurance Company v. Abdulla @ Patala decided on 5.12.2000 . 3. For the reasons that only the extent of liability on the parties are involved in the present case, there is no necessity to go into other aspects i.e. the negligence etc. 4. Record was called for.Ex. 5 is the copy of the licence in the name of the Latoor S/o Ram Karan who was authorised to drive as paid employee. Licence was valid upto 20.8.86 to 19.8.91 by the Licensing Authority, Gwalior (M.P.). The Tribunal had exonerated the insurance company on the ground that the insurance company had produced the evidence to the effect that one Ochi Lal Jethani had stated that he was directed to verify the licence of the driver Latoor from the RTO office Gwalior, copy of which licence was exhibited as Ex. The Tribunal had exonerated the insurance company on the ground that the insurance company had produced the evidence to the effect that one Ochi Lal Jethani had stated that he was directed to verify the licence of the driver Latoor from the RTO office Gwalior, copy of which licence was exhibited as Ex. 5 and that he had visited the office of the RTO on 6.8.93 and on verifying a report was made by the RTO that the licence No. 15949/86 dated 20.8.86 had not been issued by the Licensing Authority Gwalior. No other evidence was produced. It is admitted that the record of the RTO was not produced. 5. In similar circumstances, in the case of Abdula (supra) when relying on another judgment in C.M.A. No. 1749/99 decided on 29.8.2000, it was held that it was incumbent upon the insurance company to prove the validity of the driving licence by calling the concerned register or official/officer from the registering authority. Admittedly in the present case it has not been done so. Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 Supreme Court on Accident Claims 309, wherein, it was held that the evidence of the Inspector of Police who had investigated the accident to the fact that the licence was not produced by the person who had caused the accident is not reliable and, therefore, the driver was not holding the valid licence. It was held that it was not a sufficient evidence. Number of other authorities have also been relied, but because of the reason that the insurance company had failed to produce any cogent evidence direct from the office concerned about the licence Ex. 5, the order of the Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent that the liability is to be shared by all is the respondents in the claim application including the insurance company as severally and jointly. 6. For the above-said reasons the appeal is partly allowed.Appeal partly allowed. *******