JUDGMENT These appeals by the United India Insurance Company Limited are against two different awards in relation to same accident. Therefore, it is expedient to pass a common Judgment. 2. One Nekkala Akkunaidu, who is son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and brother of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in both the appeals (claimants), died in a motor accident on 24-02-1997. Claimants filed the original petitions one under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act, for brevity), and the other under Section 140 of the Act read with Rule 476 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 3. Nekkala Akkunaidu was working as a helper in the Tipper lorry bearing NoAP.31 T 3138. On 24-02-1997 the deceased along with driver of Tipper lorry went to Tina Godowns at Malakapuram for loading the Tipper lorry with Soyabeen powder. As there was some time for completion of loading, deceased went to sleep on nearby gunny bags, and driver went to sleep in his lorry. At about 2.40 hours driver of lorry bearing NO.AP 31/T-8374 loaded with soyabeen powder and driven by Jailal (first respondent in the O.Ps) in a rash and negligent manner ran over the deceased, who was sleeping, causing his instantaneous death. Claimants filed M.V.O.P.No.94 of 1998 claiming Rs.50,000/- as compensation under no fault liability, and M.V.O.P.No.1073 of 1998 claiming Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased. Owner and insurer of offending lorry contested the O.Ps. Insurer contended that there is no valid subsisting policy, that driver of offending lorry had no valid licence, and therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation claimed. 4. Evidence was let in M.V.O.P.No. 1073 of 1998. First respondent herein was examined if P. W.1, and an eyewitness to the accident as P.W.2. They marked Exs.A-1 and A-2. R.W.1, Legal Assistant in the office of the insurance company was examined apart from examining R.W.2. Exs.B-1 to B-5 also came on record as evidence for respondents. 5. On considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal by order dated 01-07-1998 in M.V.O.P.No.94 of 1998 awarded Rs.50,000/- towards no fault liability, and by order dated 30-03-2002 in M.V.O.P.No. 1073 of 1998 awarded Rs.2,08,500/- as compensation for the death of Nekkala Akkunaidu. Aggrieved by these two awards, the present appeals are filed. 6. 5. On considering the evidence on record, learned Tribunal by order dated 01-07-1998 in M.V.O.P.No.94 of 1998 awarded Rs.50,000/- towards no fault liability, and by order dated 30-03-2002 in M.V.O.P.No. 1073 of 1998 awarded Rs.2,08,500/- as compensation for the death of Nekkala Akkunaidu. Aggrieved by these two awards, the present appeals are filed. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant contends that there is no valid subsisting policy as on the date of the accident, and that the driver of the offending lorry had no valid licence. 7. This aspect of the matter was considered in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh (2004) 3 SCC 297 = AIR 2004 SC 1531 = 2004 (2) AL T 13.2, 14.3, 14.4 (DNSC). In the said judgment, the Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 149 (2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act, for brevity), read with proviso to sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 149 of the Act. Question was considered in the context of the defence taken by insurer that the driver of the vehicle had no licence or that driver of the vehicle had no valid licence and/or that the licence of driver was fake. The Supreme Court in paragraph 110 of SCC judgment laid down relevant principles applicable to such cases. Principle (iii) is relevant and reads as under. 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. To avoid its liability towards 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 duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. 8. In United Insurance Co. To avoid its liability towards 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 duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. 8. In United Insurance Co. Ltd v. M. Gangaratnam alias Ratnamma 2003 (1) An.W.R. 639 (A.P.) = 2003 (3) ALD 328 dealing with similar question, it was observed as under: The rulings of the Supreme Court and the High Courts would show that whenever the insurer claims that the Driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective licence as on the date of the accident, they have to prove the same by cogent and acceptable evidence. Mere producing a letter or endorsement from the Regional Transport Officer/Authority or any licensing authority that the licence relied on is not valid licence or effective licence would not amount to discharging the burden. The allegation that the Driver was not having valid licence or effective licence and therefore the Insurance Company stands exonerated from the policy obligations has to be proved by examining officials who gave endorsement or certificate with reference to the records maintained in the office of the licensing authority. In the absence of any driving licence it is always open to the insurer to get necessary records summoned from the office of the licensing authority and prove the documents by examining the licensing\authority or a representative of the licensing authority. Mere filing of Xerox copy of the driving licence or endorsement to the effect that the f Driver was not having valid licence E would not suffice to discharge the j burden. In case, insurer pleads that the licence produced before the Tribunal is fake licence, it is for the insurer to summon the owner or the Driver or appropriate authorities in licensing organization and examining them to prove that the licence relied on is fake licence. The claimants, who are third parties to the insurance policy cannot be burdened with proving allegations of the insurer that as Driver was not having valid licence they have to be exonerated from the liability. 9. In this case, insurer marked Ex. B-1 Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report; Ex. The claimants, who are third parties to the insurance policy cannot be burdened with proving allegations of the insurer that as Driver was not having valid licence they have to be exonerated from the liability. 9. In this case, insurer marked Ex. B-1 Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report; Ex. B-2 letter addressed to the Divisional Officer, Regional Office, Ranchi, by insurance company to verify the genuineness of driving licence; Ex. B-3 - copy of verification report; and EX.B-4 - certificate of driving licence particulars issued by licensing authority. Concerned persons who issued these documents were not examined. Therefore, appellant did not discharge burden required under law to prove allegation that driver of offending vehicle had no valid licence. Therefore appeals are liable to be dismissed. 10. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.