R. K. RASTOGI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against the award dated 24. 5. 2000, passed by Sri Shiva Ji Srivastava, learned Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ivth Additional District Judge, Hardoi in M. A. C. P. No. 2 of 1995, Smt. Rjimvati and others v. Guru Charan Singh and others. ( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that the claimants/ respondents No. 1 to 5 filed aforesaid claim petition against the appellant and respondents No. 6 and 7 with the allegations that Sri Sobran, husband of claimant No. 1 and father of claimants No. 2 to 5 was going to his village Dhamapur. P. S. Pihani, District Hardoi on a dunlop bullock cart on 26. 11. 1994. He reached near village Piparia at about 5. 00 p. m. and at that time Mini Truck No. U. P. 03/0140 came from the side of Maigalganj. It was being driven by O. P. No. 2 Ashok Kumar (respondent No. 7 in the present appeal) in rash and negligent manner and it dashed the Dunlop bullock cart from behind without blowing horn. Consequently the Dunlop bullock cart was broken and Sobran was also injured. He was admitted in the District Hospital Hardoi for treatment on that very day but he died in the hospital on 28. 11. 1994. A sum of Rs. 15,000/- was spent on his treatment. The mini truck was owned by O. P. 1, Guru Charan Singh (respondent No. 6 in the present appeal) and it was insured with M/s. Oriental Insurance Company, O. P. No. 3 (present appellant ). The age of Sobran Singh was 60 years at the time of the accident and he was earning Rs. 3000/- per month by agricultural work and sale of vegetables. The F. I. R. of the incident was lodged at P. S. Pihani by Sri Ram, the owner of bullock cart on 29. 11. 1994 and on the basis thereof crime No. 293 of 1994 was registered under sections 279, 337,338, 427 and 429,1. P. C. The petitioners claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- for loss of income due to death of Sobran, Rs. 40,000/- for mental pain and suffering, Rs. 15,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 20,000/- for difficulties in maintenance of the family and Rs. 5000/- for funereal expenses in all Rs. 3,30,000/ -. ( 3 ) O. PS. P. C. The petitioners claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- for loss of income due to death of Sobran, Rs. 40,000/- for mental pain and suffering, Rs. 15,000/- for medical expenses, Rs. 20,000/- for difficulties in maintenance of the family and Rs. 5000/- for funereal expenses in all Rs. 3,30,000/ -. ( 3 ) O. PS. No. 1 and 2 (respondents No. 6 and 7 in the present appeal) filed a joint written statement in which they pleaded that they had valid permit for plying the vehicle issued by the R. T. O. Bareilly and it was valid for the period from 2. 9. 1992 to 1. 9. 1997. Road tax etc. of the vehicle had been paid and the truck was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Badaun for the period up to 24. 4. 1995. O. P. No. 2 is a licensed driver and he had obtained driving licence from the R. T. O. Deharadun. It was valid for the period from 22. 2. 1994 to 21. 2. 1997 and the driver had been authorised to drive light motor vehicles medium motor vehicles, as well as heavy motor vehicles. The claimants have claimed excessive amount. However, their liability is to be borne by the insurance company. ( 4 ) O. P. No. 3, the present appellant, filed a separate written statement in which it was pleaded that the petition had not been filed in accordance with the provisions of section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and so it was not maintainable. The petitioners had not filed the site plan, the post-mortem report and the first information report and so the petition is liable to be dismissed on this very account. Full particulars of the insurance policy had not been given and so in the absence of those particulars the insurance could not be accepted. Even if the vehicle was insured and the accident had taken place actually, the insurance company could not be liable to pay any amount unless and until it is proved that the driver had a valid driving licence with him. The amount claimed is excessive, the petition was barred by limitation. The following issues were framed by the Claims Tribunal : 1. Whether any accident took place on 26. 11. The amount claimed is excessive, the petition was barred by limitation. The following issues were framed by the Claims Tribunal : 1. Whether any accident took place on 26. 11. 1994 at about 5 p. m. near village Piparia, P. S. Pihani, District Hardoi with mini truck No. U. P.-03/0140 due to rash and negligent driving by its driver resulting into injuries to Sobran and whether Sobran died as a result of those injuries on 28. 11. 1994 at about 9. 00 p. m. in the District Hospital Hardoi? 2. Whether the truck was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company on the date of accident and whether the driver of mini truck had a valid driving licence with him? 3. To what relief and amount if any are the petitioners entitled and from whom? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any other relief? ( 5 ) THE Claims Tribunal held on issue No. 1 that the accident took place on 26. 11. 1994 at about 5. 00 p. m. near village Piparia P. S. Pihani, District Hardoi by truck No. U. P.-03/0140, which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently and Sobran had received injuries in this accident and he died as a result of those injuries on 28. 11. 1994 at 9. 00 p. m. in District Hospital Hardoi. He held on issue No. 2 that the mini truck No. U. P.-03/0140 was validly insured with the Oriental Insurance Company on the date of the accident and its driver had a valid driving licence. He held on issue Nos. 3 and 4 that the petitioners were entitled to Rs. 50,000/- for loss of dependency and Rs. 2000/-for funeral expenses and petitioner No. 1 was also entitled to Rs. 5000 for loss of consortium. He further held that the insurance company was liable to pay this amount. He, therefore, decreed the claim petition for recovery of Rs. 57,000 /-with proportionate costs and pendente lite and future interest till the date of actual recovery at the rate of 6% per annum and directed the insurance company to pay this amount to the petitioners. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED with the aforesaid award of the Tribunal the insurance company has filed this appeal. ( 7 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and for respondents No. 1 to 5. ( 6 ) AGGRIEVED with the aforesaid award of the Tribunal the insurance company has filed this appeal. ( 7 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and for respondents No. 1 to 5. None appeared for respondents No. 6 and 7 inspite of sufficient service of notice upon them. Learned Counsel for the appellant made only one submission before me in this case. He contended that the allegation that driver of the vehicle had a valid driving licence was not proved, and so the Claims Tribunal erred by decreeing the petition against the insurance company. Learned Counsel for the appellant pointed out that in this case O. Ps. No. 1 and 2 (respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the present appeal) had filed photo copy of the driving licence of Ashok Kumar O. P. No. 2 as paper No. C-24. It is a duplicate driving licence as is apparent from the stamp "duplicate" affixed on it. He further pointed out that this photo copy of the driving licence along with other documents were not shown either to the learned Counsel for the petitioners or to the learned Counsel for the insurance company at the time of filing them in the Court. Hence, this photo copy of the driving licence could not be read into evidence unless and until it was admitted by other parties or it was proved by O. Ps. No. 1 and 2 by producing cogent evidence. He further submitted that a certified copy of the driving licence could be admitted without proof, but in the present case no certified copy was filed but only a photo copy was filed. Hence, it could not be read into evidence unless and until it was admitted by the party against whom it was produced or it was proved by evidence, and since in the present case, none of these two formalities have been observed, it was actually a waste paper which could not be read into evidence. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant cited before me the ruling of Honble Apex Court in United India Insurance Company v. Anbari and others,2000 (38) ALR 761. in support of the above contention. In this case the plea regarding validity of driving licence had been raised before the Tribunal and a photo copy of the driving licence was produced. in support of the above contention. In this case the plea regarding validity of driving licence had been raised before the Tribunal and a photo copy of the driving licence was produced. The genuineness of the photo copy had not been admitted by the insurance company. It was held that mere production of photo copy was not sufficient to prove that the driver had a valid driving licence. The above ruling applies with full force to the facts of the present case. ( 9 ) IT was further submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that in the present case the insurance company had also made enquiry from the R. T. O. Dehradun regarding the above photo copy of the driving licence through M/s. B. S. Bhardwaj and Co. , Dehradun, who are Engineers, Surveyors, Assessors, Valuers and Investigators and had obtained Government licence No. S. L. A. /221 for this purpose which was valid up to 15. 6. 2000, and they after enquiry in the office of the R. T. O. Dehradun came to know that no licence bearing No. 12580 P. P. N. /88 as mentioned in the photo copy of the licence (paper No. C-24) was issued from that office. This letter dated 27. 1. 1999 issued by M/s. B. S. Bhardwaj and Co. was filed by the insurance company as paper No. C-56 and it was proved by the insurance company by examining Jag Deepak Misra, its employee in the Divisional Office, Lucknow as O. P. W. 1. He proved signatures of Sri B. S. Bhardwaj on the above letter, paper No. C-56. Thereafter this letter was marked as Ext. 1 by the Presiding Officer of the Claims Tribunal. Learned Presiding Officer of the Claims Tribunal, however, did not rely upon this document on the ground that it had not been proved by Sri B. S. Bhardwaj, who had made the above enquiry in the office of the R. T. O. Dehradun, and the mere proof of his signatures upon it by an employee of the insurance company was not sufficient to prove its contents. ( 10 ) DURING the course of argument in this appeal the learned Counsel for the claimant/respondents cited before me a ruling of the Honble Apex Court in vishwanath Rai v. Sachchidanand Singh, AIR 1971 SC 1949 . ( 10 ) DURING the course of argument in this appeal the learned Counsel for the claimant/respondents cited before me a ruling of the Honble Apex Court in vishwanath Rai v. Sachchidanand Singh, AIR 1971 SC 1949 . in which it has been held that correctness of the contents of a letter can be proved by examining that witness only who had written the same and the correctness of those contents can not be proved by any other person who simply proves the signatures of that person on the letter. He submitted that in this way correctness of the contents of the letter paper No. C-56, could not be proved merely by examining Sri Jag Deepak Misra (O. P. W. 1) who had simply proved the signatures of Sri B. S. Bhardwaj on this letter. He submitted that in this way no reliance can be placed upon the aforesaid letter C-56. ( 11 ) LEARNED Counsel for the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5 further cited before me another ruling of the Honble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 5557 of 1997, Rukimini and others v. New India Insurance Company and others, decided on 14. 8. 1997, reported in S. C. D. 324 in which it has been held that it is the liability of the insurance company to prove that the driver did not have valid driving licence, and evidence of the inspector of police who had investigated the accident was not sufficient to discharge the above burden, and it was the duty of the insurance company to summon the driver of the vehicle and summon the record from the road transport authority to show that he did not have valid driving licence, and in this way the insurance company had not discharged its burden and so it cannot shirk its liability to pay the amount of compensation. ( 12 ) I have carefully gone through all these rulings. I has to be seen that the law in relation to the liability of insurance company, where the driver did not have a valid driving licence has undergone some changes. Previously the view was that where the driver did not have valid driving licence, the insurance company was not liable to pay the amount of compensation and it could be recovered only from the owner and driver of the vehicle. Previously the view was that where the driver did not have valid driving licence, the insurance company was not liable to pay the amount of compensation and it could be recovered only from the owner and driver of the vehicle. This view has now been changed taking into consideration the social background of the legislation in regard to liability of payment of compensation to the passengers of the vehicles as well as to third parties who are involved in the accident. It has been held by the Honble Apex Court in national Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kanti Devi and others,2005 (30) A1c 55 (SC)= (2005) 5 SCC 789 = air 2005 SC 2850 . that even in those cases where the driver did not have a valid driving licence, the insurance company can be asked to pay the compensation to the claimant but it shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (insured ). ( 13 ) THE position in the present case is that primarily it was the liability of the owner and driver of the vehicle to prove that the vehicle was being driven by a licensed driver. They failed to discharge this burden as they simply filed a photo copy of the driving licence and did not take any step to prove it. As such the photo copy of the driving licence was a waste paper and no reliance could be placed upon it and under these circumstances it is immaterial that the insurance company did not examine Sri B. S. Bhardwaj to prove correctness of the contents of letter paper No. C-56, and simply got the signatures of Sri B. B. Bhardwaj proved on that letter. Since the owner and driver of the vehicle had failed to discharge initial burden of proving the driving licence, the failure of the insurance company to examine Sri B. S. Bhardwaj to prove correctness of the contents of the letter C.-56, has not got any effect upon the merits of the case, and it shall be held that Ashok Kumar O. P. No. 2 (respondent No. 7 in the appeal) did not have any valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. The same view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of prabha Shanker Shukla v.-Shri Kant Tiwari, 2006 (64) ALR 69 (HC ). The same view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of prabha Shanker Shukla v.-Shri Kant Tiwari, 2006 (64) ALR 69 (HC ). ( 14 ) THE effect of the above finding is that the liability of the insurance company, in view of the present legal position as enumerated above in the case of national Insurance Co. v. Kanti Devi (supra) to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant/respondents No. 1 to 5 shall remain unchanged, but it shall be open for it to seek reimbursement of the entire amount of compensation paid by it to the claimant Nos. 1 to 5 from the owner of the vehicle respondent No. 6. The appeal deserves to be allowed to this extent only. ( 15 ) THE appeal is, therefore, allowed to this extent only that maintaining the liability of the appellant/insurance company to pay the amount of compensation including the cost and interest as awarded by the Claims Tribunal to claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5, it is hereby ordered that the appellant after payment of the aforesaid amount to the claimants/respondents No. 1 to 5, will be entitled to seek reimbursement of this amount from the owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 6, by filing execution application against him before the Claims Tribunal. ( 16 ) THE appeal is disposed of with the above modification in the award. Appeal Disposed Of. .