R.Jayasimha Babu, J.: These appeals arise out of the proceedings initiated before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cuddalore, in respect of the claims made by one victim and by the heirs of the another the injuries leading to the claims having resulted from an accident which had occurred on 4.1.1981 on the Kallakurichi, Thiagadurgam Road, by reason of the tractor MTF.5767 colliding with the Trailer MTF.6658. The Tribunal held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the driver. While holding the owner liable, the insurer was exonerated on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the driver held a valid driving licence at the time of accident. 2. Against this finding of the Tribunal, two C.M.As. were filed in this Court, the C.M.As. being 320 of 1983 and 527 of 1990. In C.M.A.No. 320 of 1983 it was held by the learned single Judge reversing the finding in so far as the liability of the insurer was concerned, that the failure on the part of the insurer to produce the policy disentitled the insurer’s claim that it’s liability if any on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driving of the person who did not have a driving licence, could not be claimed as there was no presumption that every situation from which the insurer under the Motor Vehicles Act in law can protect itself by excluding the liability therefor in the policy, had in fact been set out in the policy actually issued. L.P.A.No.65 of 1991 has been filed by the insurer against that judgment of the learned single Judge. 3. In C.M.A.No.527 of 1990, the amount awarded by way of compensation being over a lakh of rupees, that appeal has come directly before us. The contentions urged in respect of that appeal are the same as the one that prevailed before the learned single Judge who decided the C.M.A.No.320 of 1983. C.M.A.. as also L.P.A. have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 4. Having perused the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in A.A.O. No.320 of 1983, we are in complete agreement with what has been stated by the learned single Judge in Paragraphs 8 to 11 of her judgment. After referring to the case of National Insurance Co. 4. Having perused the judgment of the learned single Judge of this Court in A.A.O. No.320 of 1983, we are in complete agreement with what has been stated by the learned single Judge in Paragraphs 8 to 11 of her judgment. After referring to the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jugal Kishore, 1988 A.C.J. 270 as also the judgments rendered by several other High Courts, the learned single Judge held that in the absence of a policy, it is not known as to whether there was any exclusion clause relating to the driver not having a licence for that particular kind of vehicle. It is also observed that Sec.96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act contains a number of contingencies which could form part of the insurance policy with reference to the driving licence possessed by the driver of the vehicle. As to whether that requirement had been incorporated in the policy that was issued to the owner of the tractor involved in the accident is not known as the policy itself has not been placed before the Court. 5. It is the duty of the insurer to produce the policy when the fact of having issued the policy is not in dispute and the defence raised by the insurer is based upon the exclusion clause in the policy. It is not enough for the insurer to rely on the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which would enable the insurer to exclude certain contingencies from the scope of its liability. What is required to be demonstrated by the insurer is that the option given by the Act to the insurer to exclude the liability in certain situations has in fact been availed by it by incorporating appropriate clauses in the policy issued to the owner of the vehicle. The failure on the part of the insurer to produce the policy even in this Court has resulted in the insurer not being able to rely on the defence raised by it. 6. In the result. L.P.A.No.65 of 1991 is dismissed. C.M.A.No.527 of 1990 is allowed. The insurer shall be liable to pay the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The claimants before the Tribunal have received the amounts awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the vehicle. The statements to that effect was mode before us by the learned counsel for the claimants. L.P.A.No.65 of 1991 is dismissed. C.M.A.No.527 of 1990 is allowed. The insurer shall be liable to pay the amount awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The claimants before the Tribunal have received the amounts awarded by the Tribunal from the owner of the vehicle. The statements to that effect was mode before us by the learned counsel for the claimants. That was also the submission by the counsel for the owner. The insurer therefore will now have to re-imburse the owner to the extent of the amount paid by the owner to the claimants.