JUDGMENT M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal by the owner of the vehicle Is directed against the judgment and award dated 4.10.2005 passed by Additional District Judge cum-Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Lohardaga in Compensation Case No. 50 of 1998 whereby he has awarded compensation of Rs. 2,09,950/- and directed the respondent Insurance Company to pay the said amount to the claimants and to recover the same from the appellant, the owner of the offending vehicle. 2. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The claimants who are the husband, sons and daughters of the deceased, filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for grant of compensation for the death of Maina Devi. On the relevant date the deceased, Maina Devi boarded a truck bearing registration No. BR 14G-9507 from Lohardaga to Chandwa. On the way, because of the negligent driving of the driver, the vehicle met with an accident and Maina Devi who was travelling on the said truck sustained grievous injury to her person and she died at the spot. 3. The appellant who is the owner of the vehicle contested the claim on the ground that the vehicle was insured with the respondent-Insurance Company and therefore, it is the risk of the respondent-Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount. The respondent-Insurance Company, on the other hand contested the claim contending, inter alia that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation on the ground of violation of the conditions of Insurance Policy. Various other defences have also been taken by the Insurance Company. It was further contended by the Insurance Company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license and the same must be proved by the owner of the vehicle. 4. The tribunal formulated the following issues for determination of the claim: (i) Is the claim petition as framed maintainable in the present form? (ii) Have the claimants got valid cause of action to file the present claim petition? (iii) Whether the driver of the truck No. BR 14G-9507 was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner at the alleged time of occurrence? (iv) Is the compensation amount claimed by the applicants excessive and without basis and if so to what extent claimants are entitled to get compensation? (v) Whether the driver Md. (iii) Whether the driver of the truck No. BR 14G-9507 was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner at the alleged time of occurrence? (iv) Is the compensation amount claimed by the applicants excessive and without basis and if so to what extent claimants are entitled to get compensation? (v) Whether the driver Md. Alis Ahmad had valid driving license at the relevant time of accident on 21.5.1997? (vi) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of its filing till payment? 5. The tribunal while deciding issue No. 5, has come to the conclusion that the driver of the offending vehicle was having no valid driving license to drive the vehicle. The tribunal, accordingly, held that the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation. However, the tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimants and recover the same from the appellant who is the owner of the vehicle. Hence this appeal by the owner of the vehicle. 6. Mr. Rajiv Anand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant assailed the impugned award on various grounds. Learned Counsel submitted that onus lie on the Insurance Company to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle without having a valid driving license. Since the Insurance Company failed to discharge the onus, it is liable to pay the compensation amount. Learned Counsel relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. 2004 (1) TAC 321 (SC) and in the case of Narcinva V. Kamat and Anr. v. Alfredo Antonio Deo Matrius and Ors. 1985 ACJ 397 (SC). Learned Counsel also relied upon a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Divisional Manager United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal Sharma and Ors. (1998) 1 ACC 671 and on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ram Swaroop and Ors. v. Smt. Ram Murti and Ors. (2004) 1 TAC 531. 7. Mr. Ltd. v. Ram Dayal Sharma and Ors. (1998) 1 ACC 671 and on a decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ram Swaroop and Ors. v. Smt. Ram Murti and Ors. (2004) 1 TAC 531. 7. Mr. Alok Lal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent- Insurance Company, on the other hand, submitted that unless the details of the driving license is disclosed either by the owner or the driver of the vehicle the Insurance Company cannot be in a position to discharge in onus of adducing evidence. Learned Counsel submitted that once the Insurance Company takes the plea that the driver was not having a valid driving license, the onus would lie either on the owner or the driver of the vehicle to produce the driving license in order to controvert the defence taken by the Insurance Company. 8. There is no dispute with regard to certain propositions of law that if the Insurance Company takes defence that there is violation of conditions of policy inasmuch as the driver of the offending vehicle was having a fake driving license or the driving license of the driver was for driving different vehicles other than the offending vehicle, then it is for the Insurance Company to prove or establish the breach of policy by cogent evidence. 9. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. (supra) the Supreme Court considered all the earlier decisions and observed: We have analyzed the relevant provisions of the said Act in terms whereof a motors vehicle must be driven by a person having a driving license. The owner of a motor vehicle in terms of Section 5 of the Act has a responsibility to see that no vehicle is driven except by a person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Act. In a case, therefore, where the driver of the vehicle admittedly did not hold any licenses and the same was allowed consciously to be driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person, the-insurer is entitled to succeed in its defence and avoid liability. In a case, therefore, where the driver of the vehicle admittedly did not hold any licenses and the same was allowed consciously to be driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person, the-insurer is entitled to succeed in its defence and avoid liability. The matter, however, may be different where a disputed question of fact arises as to whether the driver had a valid license or where the owner of the vehicle committed a breach of the terms of the contract of insurance as also the provisions of the Act by consciously allowing any person to drive a vehicle who did not have a valid driving license. In a given case the driver of the vehicle may not have any hand at all, e.g., a case where an accident takes place owing to a mechanical fault or vis major. 10. In the concluding para 96 of the said decision their Lordships held that the Court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the burden would be discharged inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. Their Lordships further observed that the question as to whether the owner of the vehicle has taken a reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving license produced by the driver (fake one or otherwise) does fulfill the requirement of law or not, will have to be determined in each case. 11. In the instant case although the Insurance Company took a very specific defence that the driver of the vehicle was not having a driving license, the owner of the vehicle did not whisper a word in the written statement as to whether the driver was holding a driving license. No evidence was led by the owner of the vehicle stating that the driver was holding a driving license. A notice to produce all the relevant documents particularly the driving license was served upon the counsel of the respondent-owner of the vehicle under Order XII, Rule 8, CPC but not a single document particularly the driving license of the driver and the vehicle was produced in Court. The tribunal, therefore, recorded the following finding in paras 17 to 20 of the judgment: 17. The tribunal, therefore, recorded the following finding in paras 17 to 20 of the judgment: 17. Issue No. V.--The claimants have contended in para 10(c) of the claim petition that the driver of the said vehicle was driving the vehicle holding a valid driving licence under the authority of his owner. 18. O.P. No. 1 owner of the vehicle has stated in para 5 of the show-cause that truck No. BR 14G/9507 was insured vide policy No. 332908/1/0/97/ M.V./1451/8 valid from 25.12.1996 to 24.12.1997 Hence, it was liable to pay the compensation amount if any. But the owner of the vehicle has not whispered a word regarding driving license of the driver, who was driving under his authority. 19. In course of hearing the petition under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 the O.P. No. 2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited had raised the issue and in spite of this the O.P. No. 1 owner of the vehicle has not produced the driving license of his driver Md. Alim Ahmad of truck No. BR 14G/9507. The appellant, Insurance Company had filed Misc. Appeal No. 139/1997(R) before the Honble High Court of Patna, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi and it was decided vide order dated 17.2.1998 that the issue of driving license of the truck driver shall be decided at the final stage of hearing of the case and with this observation the Misc. Appeal dismissed. 20. On perusal of the record, I find that a notice was issued by the learned advocate on behalf of the Oriental Insurance Company Limited to Shri Kripa Shankar Pandey, the learned advocate for the opposite-party No. 1 owner of the vehicle under Order XII, Rule 8, CPC to produce at the relevant papers of the alleged vehicle like owner book Tax token, Permit, Fitness, Insurance Policy and specially the driving license of the driver in your custody, possession or power relating to the matter in this case. The letter is received on 16.8.2005 but not a single document particularly driving license of the driver of the truck filed or produced in the Court. It makes clear that there was no valid driving license to the driver, Md. Alim Ahmad of truck No. BR14G/9507 on the alleged date of occurrence 21.5.2007 and as such not filed in the Court. This issue is decided accordingly. 12. It makes clear that there was no valid driving license to the driver, Md. Alim Ahmad of truck No. BR14G/9507 on the alleged date of occurrence 21.5.2007 and as such not filed in the Court. This issue is decided accordingly. 12. Certainly it is for the Insurance Company to establish that the driving license was fake or invalid but in a case where the defence of the Insurance Company that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a license is not denied either by the owner of the driver of the vehicle then the question of proving anything does not arise. The tribunal, therefore, in my considered opinion has rightly held that in absence of any evidence that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a driving license, the Insurance Company shall have no liability for payment of compensation. Even after recording the aforesaid finding the tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount to the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In my opinion, therefore, the impugned judgment and award needs no interference at all. 13. For the aforesaid reason, we find no merit in this appeal which is accordingly, dismissed. R.R. Prasad, J. 14. I agree.