Judgement' – This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998 (in short the Act) against the judgment and award, dated 13-05-1996, passed 'by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/First Addl. District Judge, Nainital (in short the Tribunal) in MAC. Petition No. 260 of 1994, Sri Mukhtar Alam Vs. Sri Bhupesh Ch.andra Joshi and another, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum against the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant (owner of the vehicle) has come up in appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that claimant-respondent no. 1 on 31-05-1994 at about 10-30 p.m. when he was going back to his home from the side of Tikonia, Haldwani and reached near Pulia of Nahar a Truck No. UTF 1641, which was driven rashly and negligently by the driver of the said truck dashed against the stationary vehicle No. DLG 1986. The said stationary vehicle fell upon the claimant-respondent no.1 crushing his right hand. The claimant-respondent no.1 was admitted to Hospital, where he remained under treatment from 31-5-1994 to 21-6-1994 and sum of Rs. 25,000/= was spent on his treatment but even then his hand could not be set at right after the treatment and he became physically disabled due to injury. At the time of the accident the claimant-respondent no. 1 was 11 years of age and he was earning Rs. 900/= per month by working as mechanic. It was alleged that the appellant/Opp. Party no.1 is the owner of the said truck no. UTF 1641, which was insured with National InSurance Company. The claimant/respondent nO.1 claimed compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/= against the owner-appellant as well as National Insurance Company. 3. Before the Tribunal respondents filed Written Statement separately. The appellant-respondent no.1 in his written statement has submitted that he is owner of the truck in question UTF 1641, but denied that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of his truck and pleaded that the claimant-respondent no. 1 was responsible for this accident and he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. Respondent no.2 in its written statement has denied that the vehicle in question is insured with the National Insurance Company. 4. 1 was responsible for this accident and he is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. Respondent no.2 in its written statement has denied that the vehicle in question is insured with the National Insurance Company. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following Issues were framed by the learned Tribunal :- (1) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of truck no. UTF 1641 as alleged in para 23 of the petition and its effect? (2) To what amount of compensation, if any, is the petitioner entitled and from whom ? (3) Whether Mukhtar Alam, the petitioner, is responsible for this accident? If so, to what extent and effect ? (4) Whether the vehicle Truck No. UTF 1641 was validly insured? 5. Before the learned Tribunal the claimants have examined three witnesses, namely Mohd. Yusuf (PW 1), Anwar Hussain (PW 2) and Dr. S. P. Ojha (PW 3) and filed documentary evidence. A brief reference to their evidence is given below. 6. The claimant has examined Mohd. Yusuf (PW1), Anwar Hussain (PW2) and .. Dr. S.P. Ojha (PW3) to prove his case. Mohd. Yusuf (PW1) is the father of .the injured-claimant. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he was not present .on the spot at the time of the occurrence. His evidence is not relevant on the point .of negligence. 7. P.W.2 Anwar Hussain has stated that the Claimant was employed in his shop which is at a distance of 2 KM. from the place of occurrence. He stated that at the time of. the-accident he was about to go after closing his shop and was looking towards the road al)d the claimant was going back to his home from his shop when the alleged accident took place. He has stated that when the claimant reached the Pulia of Barsati Nahar where a stationary truck No. DLG 1986 .was on its gear and the truck in question No. UTF 1641 came at a high speed from behind and dashed against this stationary truck with the result that the truck fell upon the hand of the claimant and claimant was injured. He was admitted to hospital for his treatment. The report of this accident was lodged by his father Mohd. Yusuf (PW1) which is paper No. 6-00/2 on 5-06-1994. P.W. 3 Dr. S.P. Ojha has stated that on 31-05-1994 Sr. He was admitted to hospital for his treatment. The report of this accident was lodged by his father Mohd. Yusuf (PW1) which is paper No. 6-00/2 on 5-06-1994. P.W. 3 Dr. S.P. Ojha has stated that on 31-05-1994 Sr. 5.5. Pangty Medical Officer examine the injuries of the claimant and prepared the injury report whose copy is paper no. 6-Ga/3, copy of his X-ray report is paper no. 6-Ga/4 also filed. According to the report there was fracture in the right hand above the knee joint of the claimant. He has stated that the claimant remained admitted in the hospital upto 21-6-1994 for treatment and he was discharged after improvement in his condition and drawing this period he remained under his supervision. The opinion was given by the Doctor that injury of the claimant could be caused in the accident on 31-5-1994 at about 10:00 a.m. 8. The Opposite Parties have not examined any witness. After evidence of the parties and hearing both the parties, the learned Tribunal took up Issue no. 1 and 3 together are being inter connected and held that the accident in question was caused due to the sole negligence on the part of the driver of the Truck No. UTF-1641 and there was no negligence on the part of the claimant, who sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident. On Issue No.4 relating to holding of valid driving licence, the learned Tribunal was of the view that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving .licence on the date of accident therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. On quantum of compensation, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the claimant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with interest @12% per annum thereon from the date .of claim petition till payment and accordingly, the claim petition was decreed against the owner of the vehicle-appellant. 9. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant-owner of the vehicle that the learned Tribunal erred in fastening the liability to pay compensation on the owner instead of insurer of the vehicle. It was argued by the learned counsel that even if it is presumed that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence on the date of accident, it was not in the knowledge of the owner. It was argued by the learned counsel that even if it is presumed that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence on the date of accident, it was not in the knowledge of the owner. In any case, the Insurance Company has not taken any plea nor led any evidence that the driver was not having proper licence on the date of incident. Learned counsel for the insurer-respondent nO.2 on the other hand submitted that the finding of the learned Tribunal is based on the evidence on record. 10. For Just decision of the case, scrutiny of the pleadings of the Insurance Company as well as that of the evidence led by the parties appears to be necessary. The Insurance Company filed its written statement 15-Kha before the Tribunal. No where in the written statement, the insurance company took the stand that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence. The Insurance Company has filed paper no. 29-C/2, Form 3046/K/88 of Durga Datt son of Jhub Deb, Old LT.L Haidwani were sought. There is no mention of the applicant seeking the information from the Licencing Authority. Moreover, the columns of this Form have not been completely filled up by the person making the application. However, in this document an endorsement purports to have been made by the Licencing Authority to the effect that D.L. No. D-3046/ K/88 was issued in favour of Durga batt on 18-7-88 .for driving light motor vehicles. On 2-2-89, licence to drive heavy motor vehicle and on 16-1-92 licence to driver medium motor vehicle was issued. It was also mentioned therein that driving licence was valid from 30-12-94 to 29-12-97 at present and earlier, the said driving licence was valid from 5-2-91 to 17-1-1994. It is pertinent to mention that neither the driver of the vehicle was produced before the Court nor the owner of the vehicle has appeared in the witness box. It is not the case of the claimant that Durga Datt was driver at the relevant time. Unless sufficient opportunity is afforded to the person affected by a particular document, for rebuttal, which is not a public document, the same may not be taken as strict proof of its contents. Moreover, the Insurance Company has not produced any official of the Transport Department to prove the endorsement. Unless sufficient opportunity is afforded to the person affected by a particular document, for rebuttal, which is not a public document, the same may not be taken as strict proof of its contents. Moreover, the Insurance Company has not produced any official of the Transport Department to prove the endorsement. It has also not been explained as to form which source the information contained in the Form No. 54 was given by the Licencing Authority. In these circumstances, this paper 29-C/2 cannot be given authenticity. The learned Tribunal lost sight of all these facts while relying upon paper no. 29-C/2. In my view, in the alternative, the said Durga Datt could be the best person to support the contention as raised by the Insurance Company but he was not produced before the Tribunal. 11. Before the learned Tribunal, the appellant/owner of the truck filed a copy of the Insurance policy i.e. paper no. 31 Ga/2 showing that the respondent no. 2 National Insurance Company and this insurance was effective from 15-101993 to 12-10-1994 i.e. on the date of accident 31-5-1994 the truck in question was validity insured with the respondent no. 2. 12. It may be mentioned here that the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others [(2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases, 297]* has laid down the law on the point. Paragraph no. 110 (iii) reads as under :- "(iii) The breach of policy condition e.g. disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in sub-section (2) (a) (ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time." In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, It was incumbent upon the Insurance Company to establish that the owner of the vehicle was guilty of negligence and he failed to exercise reasonable care In the matter of fulfilling the policy conditions regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver. 13. Having considered the entire material on record, I am of the considered view that the learned Tribunal was not justified in holding that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation because the driver of the Truck. No. UTF1641 was not having a valid driving licence. I am further fortified in my view by the Apex Court judgment in the case of Punam Devi and another Vs. Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and others [(2004) 3 Supreme Court cases, 386] wherein provisions of Sections 149(2) and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act were considered. The Apex Court has observed that "Insurance Company neither pleading nor leading evidence that the offending driver had no licence Claims Tribunal awarding compensation- Held, quantum of compensation cannot be challenged and the only ground open to the Insurance Company is under S. 149(2), to show that the insured was negligent or that he failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of the vehicle- Since the Insurance Company failed to discharge this burden, High Court erred in allowing the appeal." In the instant case also, the Insurance Company has totally failed to discharge its burden. No plea was taken by the Insurance Company in its written statement that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid licence. Paper no. 29-C/2 has not been proved on record as mentioned earlier. The Insurance Company-respondent no. 2 is liable to pay the compensation. No plea was taken by the Insurance Company in its written statement that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid licence. Paper no. 29-C/2 has not been proved on record as mentioned earlier. The Insurance Company-respondent no. 2 is liable to pay the compensation. The finding of the leamed Tribunal is liable to be set-aside to that extent. The learned Trlbunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/-, which shall be payable by the insurer-respondent no. 2 . 14. So far as award of interest @ 12% per annum is concerned, I am of the view that the rate of interest is on higher side, which may be suitably reduced. The bank rate of interest is on decline at present. In view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. etc. Vs. Pattricia Jean Mahajan & ors. etc. etc.[2002(2) Apex Court Judgments 100 (S.C.)] rate of simple interest can be suitably reduced from 12% p.a. to 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of payment. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 15. The appeal is allowed. The impugned order stands modified to the above extent. The amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 25,000/- (Twenty-five thousand) along with up-to date interest @ 9% per annum from the date of claim petition till payment shall be paid by the Insurance Company-respondent no. 2. No order as to costs.