Short Note Insurance Company has felt aggrieved of an award dated 25.11.1993. passed in Claim Case No. 1/91 by learned M.A.C.T. Mandsaur, holding them liable to pay fort he compensation awarded to respondent No.1 (claimant) for the injuries suffered by him in an accident and hence filed this appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. The only question, therefore, that falls for consideration in this appeal is whether Tribunal was justified in holding Insurance Company liable. So far as respondent No.1 (claimant) is concerned, he has not questioned the legality of an award by claiming more compensation than what is awarded by filing cross-appeal or cross-objection and hence an award to that extent awarding compensation has become final. The only question is whether any case is made out for exoneration of Insurance Company? The only defence of Insurance Company was that driver of offending vehicle (auto-rickshaw) which was insured with the Company and which dashed into claimant's vehicle on the fateful day (10.8.1989) was not holding licence and that the vehicle was not insured with them. In the opinion of Tribunal, these two defenses were formulated in issues No. 5 and 6 and were answered against the Insurance Company by holding inter alia that burden to prove these two issues was on Company and it failed to discharge the said burden by leading evidence. It was held that owner of offending vehicle having been proceeded ex-part, the entire burden lay on the Insurance Company which, as held supra, was not discharged resulting in liability on them. I also concur with this finding. In my opinion, there is nothing illegal, or perverse in the approach of Tribunal while recording findings on these two issues against the Insurance Company. They failed to prove that driver had no licence. There was no evidence to prove this fact at all. It was incumbent for them to have summoned the record of RTA to prove this fact. This was not done. Mere allegation and oral evidence is not enough nor sufficient to record finding on the issue. It was a case of third party risk which was duly covered and hence award for Rs. 35,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident was legally justified and had to be passed against owner/driver and Company jointly and severally. It was a case of third party risk which was duly covered and hence award for Rs. 35,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in an accident was legally justified and had to be passed against owner/driver and Company jointly and severally. No good ground having been made out, at the instance of appellant (Insurance Company) to gerid of impugned award, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No cost.