M. M. KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) THE award dated 1. 10. 2005 passed by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal, Yamunanagar at Jagadhri is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ( 2 ) THERE are categorical findings that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck No. HR-11-0547 by one Mangal singh, respondent 2. It has further been held that the appellant-Insurance Company has failed to produce on record any evidence showing that the driver was not having a valid driving licence. A total amount of rs. 1,45,400/-, on account of medical expenses plus damage to the vehicle, has been awarded to the claimant-respondents, who had suffered grievous injuries in the accident. ( 3 ) THE only argument raised by Sh. R. C. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, is that no inference can be drawn from the non-appearance of the driver that he did not carry a valid driving licence or that he was not duly licensed on the date of accident. Learned counsel has referred to finding on Issue No. 3 to point out that despite the order passed by the Tribunal, the driving licence was not produced. On the aforementioned basis, it is sought to be argued that an adverse inference should be drawn against the driver and the owner. ( 4 ) WE are afraid that the argument raised by the learned counsel is absolutely mis-conceived because it was the duty of the appellant-Insurance Company to prove on record the absence of driving licence. The tribunal has taken a correct view that during the validity of the insurance policy, the appellant-Insurance Company has to be held liable for the compensation assessed by the Tribunal. There is, thus, no merit in the petition, which accordingly is dismissed