A. K. GOHIL, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANT insurance company has filed this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 24. 6. 1994 passed by Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandleshwar, in Claim Case No. 128 of 1990, whereby it awarded a compensation of Rs. 87,000 with interest in favour of respondent No. 1 claimant ignoring the defence of the insurance company that the driver of the truck was not having a valid driving licence, therefore, the insurance company is not liable for payment of any compensation. ( 2 ) THE brief facts of the case are that on 25. 8. 1990, a truck bearing registration number CIB 8194 belonging to deceased respondent No. 2 Tarachand, who was a transporter, being driven by one Mahesh s/o Ganpat Gujar, resident of Lonara village, p. S. Ooon, District Khargone, met with an accident and the claimants suffered injuries. Matter was reported to the police. Dehati Nalish, Exh. P-23-A, was written by police. The driver was arrested and arrest memo was prepared. Spot map was also prepared which is Exh. P-24-A and a panchnama, Exh. P-26-A, was prepared by which the said truck, its registration, national permit, insurance policy and fitness certificate were seized from the driver and it has been specifically mentioned in this panchnama, as a note, that "the driver was not having a driving licence, therefore, the same could not be seized". The owner of the vehicle as well as driver, both remained absent. The Tribunal granted an award in favour of claimant for a sum of Rs. 87,000. The Claims Tribunal recorded a finding that even though the driver was not having a driving licence, still the insurance company is liable for payment of compensation. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant insurance company has filed this appeal. ( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 4 ) THE submission of Mr. Surjeet Singh, learned counsel for appellant insurance company is that there is no evidence on record to prove that the driver was having a valid driving licence. PW 4 Shakir was examined who was a witness of seizure memo Exh. P-26-A and he has clearly admitted that in the seizure memo it has been clearly written that the driver is not having valid driving licence. PW 4 Shakir was examined who was a witness of seizure memo Exh. P-26-A and he has clearly admitted that in the seizure memo it has been clearly written that the driver is not having valid driving licence. DW 1 Shailesh kumar Thakkar, who was working in the office of Assistant R. T. O. , Khargone, was examined on behalf of the appellant insurance company and he has clearly stated in examination-in-chief as well as in the cross-examination that driver Mahesh s/o Ganpat Gujar, resident of Lonara village, p. S. Ooon, District Khargone, has not obtained any licence from the office of Assistant R. T. O. , Khargone. Therefore, his submission is that from the aforesaid evidence it is clear that the driver was not having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle and in view of this evidence the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence and finding about fixing the liability of the insurance company. ( 5 ) IN a case where there is breach of conditions and the driver of the vehicle is not having valid driving licence, admittedly the insurance company is not liable for payment of any compensation. Initially it is the burden on the owner of the vehicle as well as on the driver to prove that the driver was having a valid driving licence and the vehicle was handed over to a driver who was having a valid driving licence. But here admittedly both, owner and driver, remained absent and ex pane. Therefore, the insurance company had no option but to examine the officer of the concerned R. T. O. , in whose area the said driver was residing. In view of the aforesaid evidence on record it is clear that it was the initial burden on the owner of the vehicle as well as on the driver to prove that he was having a valid driving licence and the vehicle was handed over to the driver who was having a valid driving licence. Since both remained absent, the evidence produced by the insurance company is admissible in evidence and in view of such an evidence the Claims Tribunal has committed illegality in recording a finding about the liability of the insurance company. Since both remained absent, the evidence produced by the insurance company is admissible in evidence and in view of such an evidence the Claims Tribunal has committed illegality in recording a finding about the liability of the insurance company. ( 6 ) ON the basis of the statement of DW 1 Shailesh Kumar Thakkar and also in view of the statement of PW 4 Shakir who is also the witness of seizure-memo, Exh. P-26-A, it is held that the driver was not having a valid driving licence. ( 7 ) THUS, in view of the aforesaid evidence, this appeal is allowed and the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal about the liability of the insurance company is hereby set aside. The insurance company has already deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000. Looking to the condition of the claimant, who is an illiterate labourer and there is amputation of her right leg, therefore, the insurance company is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation with interest and costs within a period of two months from today for payment to claimant. The insurance company shall have liberty to recover the said amount paid on behalf of the owner with interest and costs from L. Rs. of deceased respondent No. 2 owner of the vehicle in accordance with law. No order as to costs. The record be returned immediately. Appeal allowed. .