S.C. Chaurasia,J.: - 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 01-11-1997 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/IV Additional District Judge, Barabanki in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 208 of 1994, Munne Ansar @ Muneer Ansar @ Munne Pahelwan and others Versus Mohd. Saddiq and others, whereby, he awarded a sum of Rs. 1,87,000/- alongwith simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the petition till final payment, as compensation and directed the opposite party no. 1 to pay the said amount. 2. The brief facts, giving rise to this appeal, are that the claimants, Munne Ansar @ Muneer Ansar @ Munne Pahelwan and others, filed the claim petition with the allegations that Mainuddin @ Mohayaddin, son of Munne Ansar sustained injuries on 17-10-1994 at about 12.30 p.m. on Ramnagar Barabanki road near Choudhary Petrol Pump, police Station-Masauli, district-Barabanki, as a result of the accident caused by bus no. URU-4768, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, Moharram Ali, S/o Hafiz Nazeer, when he was checking the fuel of his tempo(Vikram). Mainuddin @ Mohayaddin succumbed to his injuries, later on. The F.I.R. of the incident was lodged and the case was registered against the driver of the bus in question. The deceased was the driver of Tempo and his age was about 30 years and his monthly income was Rs. 1500/- The opposite party no. 1, Mohd. Saddiq was the owner of the bus in question. It was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd., opposite party no. 3. The claimants are the legal representatives of the deceased and have claimed a sum of Rs. 3,61,000/- as compenstaion. 3. The opposite parties nos. 1 & 2 have filed Written Statement and have admitted that opposite party no. 1 was the owner of bus No. URU-4768 and it was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd.,but, they have denied other allegations made in the claim petition. Their version is that the said bus was not involved in the accident and it was not being driven by Moharram Ali at the time of alleged accident. On the day of alleged accident, Sri Rafiq son of Habib, resident of Rasoolpur, police station-Kotwali, district-Barabanki, was driver of bus no. URU-4768 and he was holding a valid driving licence. The opposite party no. 2 was also holding a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident. On the day of alleged accident, Sri Rafiq son of Habib, resident of Rasoolpur, police station-Kotwali, district-Barabanki, was driver of bus no. URU-4768 and he was holding a valid driving licence. The opposite party no. 2 was also holding a valid driving licence at the time of alleged accident. If it is found that the said accident was caused by the said bus and the opposite parties nos. 1 & 2 are liable for the said accident, even then the opposite party no. 3 is liable to pay the amount of compensation. The claimants are not entitled to get any compensation from them. The amount of compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive. The claim petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. The opposite party no. 3 filed the Written Statement separately and has admitted that Mohd. Saddiq was the owner of bus No. URU-4768 and it was insured with it for the period 25-11-1993 to 24-11-1994, but, has denied the other allegations made in the claim petition. Its version is that it appears that the driver of tempo (deceased) was driving the tempo very rashly and negligently with a high speed in the middle of the road and the alleged accident took place due to negligence of the deceased. The tempo number and name of owner and details of insurance company have not been disclosed in the claim petition. The owner of bus No. URU-4768 has filed photostat copy of the driving licence of Irfan, who was not authorised to drive the heavy vehicles as reported by the R.T.O., Faizabad. Moreover, the driving licence was not effective at the time of accident. It was issued for the period of 06-05-1988 to 05-05-1991, and the driving licence was neither issued nor renewed in the name of Moharram Ali. That from the report of Licencing Authority, it is clear that Moharram Ali was driving the vehicle in question without any valid and effective driving licence against the special terms and conditions of the insurnace policy as well as the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act. In fact, Moharram Ali & Irfan are different persons and owner of the bus has misrepresented the facts regarding driver of the bus. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: - 1. In fact, Moharram Ali & Irfan are different persons and owner of the bus has misrepresented the facts regarding driver of the bus. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: - 1. Whether the accident was caused on 17-10-1994 at about 12.30 P.M. on Ramnagar Barabanki road near Choudhary Petrol Pump due to rash and negligent driving of bus no. URU-4768 by its driver and the death of Mainuddin alias Mohayaddin was caused as a result of the said accident ? 2. Whether the bus no. URU-4768 was insured with the opposite party no. 3 ? if so, whether the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation due to breach of condititions of the insurance policy ? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get compensation? If so, against whom, and to what extent ? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to get any other relief ? 5. Whether the bus no. URU-4768 was insured w.e.f. 25-11-1993 to 24-11-1994 vide cover note no. 393404 ? 6. Whether the driver of the bus in question, Moharram Ali was not holding the valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident as alleged by the insurance company ? 6. The petitioners have examined Sri Munne Ansar,P.W.-1, Sri Jabir Ali, P.W.-2 and Sri Jalil Ahmad, P.W.-3 in support of their case and have also filed documentary evidence. The opposite parties nos. 1 & 2 have examined themselves, Irfan alias Moharram Ali, D.W.-1 and Mohd.Siddiq, D.W.-2, in support of their case and have also filed documentary evidence. The opposite party no. 3 has filed the documentary evidence, but, has not produdced any oral evidence. 7. After apprisal of evidence available on record, learned Tribunal held that the accident in question was caused due to rash and negligent driving of bus no. URU- 4768 by its driver; that on 17-10-1994, the bus no. URU- 4768 was insured with the opposite party no. 3, but, the owner of said bus violated the conditions of insurance policy as it was being driven by Moharram Ali, who had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident; that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation; that the petitioners are entitled to get a sum of Rs. 1,87,000/- as compensation from the opposite party no. 1. 1,87,000/- as compensation from the opposite party no. 1. On the basis of said findings, the impugned award dated 01-11-1997 was pased against the opposite party no. 1. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned award dated 01-11-1997, the opposite party no. 1 has preferred this appeal. 9. We have heard Sri Z.Jilani, learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants and perused the record. None appeard to argue on behalf of National Insurance Company Ltd., respondent no. 7. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the driver of the bus in question was holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of alleged accident and the appellant has not violated any condition of insurance policy. He has further submitted that the learned Tribunal has misinterpreted the evidence and has held wrongly that the appellant has violated the conditions of insurance policy and has fastened the liability to pay compensation on the appellant wrongly. His contention is that the bus in question was insured with the insurance company and it was being driven by the driver holding a valid and effective driving licence and hence, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. His contention is that the amount of compensation awarded is also excessive. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this court: - 1.(2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 338, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Lehru and Others. 2.2004 (3) Supreme Court Cases 297, National Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Swaran Singh and Others 3.2004 (1) T.A.C. 668 (All.), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Nathuni Prasad and Another 11. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants has supported the findings recorded by learned Tribunal and has submitted that the findings recorded by learned Tribunal are based on evidence available on record and hence, no interference is called for by this court in the impugned award dated 01-11-1997. 12. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd.(Supra), the Insurance Company has tried to avoid its liability on the ground that the licence of the driver of the car was a fake licence. Para nos. 19 & 20 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court may be quoted as under:- "19. 12. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd.(Supra), the Insurance Company has tried to avoid its liability on the ground that the licence of the driver of the car was a fake licence. Para nos. 19 & 20 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court may be quoted as under:- "19. Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prohibits driving of a motor vehicle in any public place unless the driver has an effective driving licence. Further, Section 180 of the Motor Vehicles Act makes an owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle punishable with imprisonment or fine if he causes or permits a person without a licence to drive the vehicle. It is clear that the punishment under Section 180 can only be imposed if the owner or person in charge of the vehicle "causes or permits" driving by a person not duly licensed. Thus there can be no punishment if a person without a licence drives without permission of the owner. Section 149(2)(a)(ii) merely recognises this conditiion. It therefore only absloves the insurance company where there is a breach by the insured. 20. When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a compeent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver.We find it rather strange that insurance companies expect owners to make enquiries with RTOs, which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus, where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently there would be no breach of Section 149(2) (a)(ii). The insurance company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake, the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. The insurance company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake, the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly, even in such a case the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured.This is the law which has been laid down in Skandia, Sohan Lal Passi and Kamla cases. We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and see no reason to take a different view." 13. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where the driver of the vehicle, admittedly, did not hold any licence 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 licence 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 licence. 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 licenced driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. Para no. 108 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court may be quoted as under: - " 108. Although, as noticed hereinbefore, there are certain special leave petitions wherein the persons having the vehicles at the time when the accidents took place did not hold any licence at all, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not intend to set aside the said awards. Such awards may also be satisfied by the petitioners herein subject to their right to recover the same from the owners of the vehicles in the manner laid down therein. Such awards may also be satisfied by the petitioners herein subject to their right to recover the same from the owners of the vehicles in the manner laid down therein. But this order may not be considered as a precedent." 14. In the case of Oriental Insurace Co. Ltd. (Supra), the Division Bench of this court has held that if the driver had a valid licence and it was again renewed in his favour, it shall be taken that he was competent to drive the vehicle. The claim petition cannot be dismissed on the ground that he had no valid licence. 15. Sri Jabir Ali, P.W.-2 and Sri Jalil Ahmad, P.W.-3 are the ocular witnesses of the alleged accident. Their evidence has been considerd by the learned Tribunal thoroughly and the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident was caused on 17-10-1994 at about 12.30 P.M. on Ramnagar-Barabanki Road due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No. URU-4768 by its driver and Sri Mohayaddin, sustained injuries as a result of the said accident and he sccumbed to his injuries later on. The said finding is based on the evidence available on record and we have no valid reason to differ from the said finding. 16. The F.I.R. was lodged against the driver of bus in question. The case was investigated. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was filed against the accused Moharram Ali, S/o Sri Hafiz Nazeer, R/o Satrikh Naka, Police Station-Kotwali, district-Barabanki. under sections 279, 337, 338, 427 & 304-A I.P.C. The claimants have filed the certified copy of the said chargesheet, paper no. 46- C. 17. The main points for determination in this appeal are as to who was driving the bus in question at the time of alleged accident and whether the driver of the said bus was holding a valid and effective driving licence at that time ?. 18. Sri Jalil Ahmad, P.W.-3 has stated that the bus no. URU-4768 was being driven by Moharram Ali. He is acquainted with him. In his cross- examination, he has stated that Moharram Ali resides at Naka Satrikh near Sabzi Mandi. Mohd. Siddiq is the brother of Moharram Ali and he carries on the business of bus. On seeing paper no. 24-C, he has stated that the photo of Moharram Ali is affixed thereon. He is acquainted with him. In his cross- examination, he has stated that Moharram Ali resides at Naka Satrikh near Sabzi Mandi. Mohd. Siddiq is the brother of Moharram Ali and he carries on the business of bus. On seeing paper no. 24-C, he has stated that the photo of Moharram Ali is affixed thereon. He does not know as to whether Moharram Ali is also called or not as Mohd. Irfan. Mohd. Irfan alias Moharram Ali, D.W.-1, has stated that his real brother Mohd. Siddiq was the owner of bus no. URU-4768. On 17-10-1994. i.e. on the day of accident, he was not the driver of the said bus. On that day, Sri Rafiq, son of Habib was the driver of the said bus. He is also called Moharram Ali. He has a driving licence to drive the bus, the photostat copy of which, paper no. 24-C, has been filed. The certificate issued by Assistant Regional Transport Officer, Barabanki, paper no. 43-Kha, in respect of driving licence, has been filed. His driving licence was valid on 17-10-1994, the endorsement of which has been made in paper no. 34-C. Sri Rafiq, driver of the bus at the time of the accident, was also holding a valid driving licence, the photostat copy of which, paper no. 42-C has been filed. He has brought the duplicate driving licence of Rafiq. There is an endorsement of its validity from 30-09-1993 to 29-09-1996 to drive heavy vehicles. 19. Mohd. Siddiq, D.W.-2, has stated that he was the registered owner of bus no. URU-4768 on 17-10-1994. Sri Rafiq son of Habib was the driver of the said bus on that day. Mohd. Irfan is his brother. He is also called Moharram Ali. Moharram Ali and Mohd. Irfan are the same person. 20. The opposite parties nos. 1 & 2 have filed their joint written statement. They have not pleaded in the written statement that Mohd. Irfan is also called Moharram Ali and Mohd. Irfan and Moharram Ali are the same person. In the photostat copy of the driving licence of Mohd. Irfan, name of Mohd. Irfan only has been mentioned and the said driving licence has not been issued in favour of Mohd. Irfan alias Moharram Ali. Paper no 43-Kha, indicates that an application was moved by Mohd. Irfan and Moharram Ali are the same person. In the photostat copy of the driving licence of Mohd. Irfan, name of Mohd. Irfan only has been mentioned and the said driving licence has not been issued in favour of Mohd. Irfan alias Moharram Ali. Paper no 43-Kha, indicates that an application was moved by Mohd. Irfan to the Registration Officer, Barabanki for obtaining the report in respect of his driving licence and the report dated 20-10-1995 was given by the A.R.T.O(Administration),Barabanki in respect of the driving licence of Mohd. Irfan. Neither in the said application nor in the report given by the A.R.T.O. thereon, the alleged "URFIAT" of Mohd. Irfan i.e. Moharram Ali has been mentioned. If in fact Mohd. Irfan was also called Moharram Ali, the said fact would have been mentioned in his application as well in the report of A.R.T.O. It appears that theory of "URFIAT" has been developed by the opposite parties nos. 1 & 2 later on, with some ulterior motive. Mere statement of Jalil Ahmad,P.W.-3 that photo of Moharram Ali is affixed on paper no. 24-C i.e. on the driving licence of Mohd. Irfan, would not be sufficeint to establish that Mohd. Irfan alias Moharram Ali was driving the bus in question at the time of accident, particularly, when Mohd Irfan alias Moharram Ali has denied it specifically. If there had been any truth in the version of the opposite parties nos. 1 & 2, they would have mentioned in their written statement that Mohd. Irfan is also called Moharram Ali and they are the same person. No reliance can be placed on their evidence to establish a fact, which has not been pleaded in the written statement. The owner of the vehicle in question has not produced any driving licence relating to Moharram Ali. 21. During investigation of the criminal case, surrender applications and bail application, paper nos. 56- C to 58-C were moved on behalf of the accused mentioning his name as Mohd. Irfan alias Moharram Ali, but, after investigation, chargesheet was filed against Moharram Ali only. Hence, the opposite parties nos. 1 & 2 are not entitled to get any advantage on the basis of said applications, particularly, when the said fact has not been pleaded in the written statement. 22. The opposite parties nos. Irfan alias Moharram Ali, but, after investigation, chargesheet was filed against Moharram Ali only. Hence, the opposite parties nos. 1 & 2 are not entitled to get any advantage on the basis of said applications, particularly, when the said fact has not been pleaded in the written statement. 22. The opposite parties nos. 1 & 2 have mentioned in their Written Statement that Rafiq S/o Habib R/o Rasoolpur, Police Station-Kotwali, district-Barabanki was the driver of the bus in question at the time of accident and he was holding a valid driving licence. Mohd. Irfan alias Moharram Ali, D.W.-1 and Mohd. Siddiq, D.W.-2 have also stated that Rafiq was the driver of the bus in question at the time of the alleged accident. The photostat copy of the driving licence of Rafiq, paper no. 42-C, has been filed. Mohd. Irfan alias Moharram Ali, D.W.-1 had also brought the duplicate driving licence of Rafiq at the time of his statement. Rafiq was employed with the opposite party no. 1 and he was an importatnt witness, but, the opposite parties have not produced Rafiq, the alleged driver of the bus in question in evidence without any sufficient ground. Since, the opposite parties have failed to produce Rafiq in evidence, an adverse inference would be drawn against them that if he would have been produced in evidence by the opposite parties, he would not have supported their version. If D.W.-1 was in a position to bring duplicate original driving licence of Rafiq at the time of his statement, he could easily produce him in evidence. If Rafiq would have been produced in evidence, Jalil Ahmad-P.W.-3 would have an opportunity to identify him also. It has not been established that Rafiq was driving the bus in question at the time of the accident. 23. After considering the record, we are of the view that learned Tribunal has held rightly that the bus in question was being driven by Moharram Ali at the time of accident and he had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the bus at that time. 24. It is not disputed that the bus in question was insured with the insurance company at the time of alleged accident. 24. It is not disputed that the bus in question was insured with the insurance company at the time of alleged accident. Since the driver of the said bus, namely, Moharram Ali was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the alleged accident, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the bus, because, there has been breach of conditions of the insurance policy. It was the duty of the owner of the said bus to ensure that no unauthorized person is permitted to drive the bus. 25. The present case is distinguishable on facts and hence, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as of this court in the cases, as quoted above, are of no help to the appellant. In the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. (Supra), in para 108 of its judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that this order may not be considered as a precedent. 26. In the instant case, the driver of the bus in question did not hold any driving licence at all. In the case reported in (2004) 3 Surpeme Court Cases 343 - Malla Prakasa Rao Versus Malla Janaki & others, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that according to the terms of the contract, the Insurance company has no liability to pay any compensation where an accident takes place by a vehicle, driven by a driver without a driving licence. Under these circumstances, the liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened on the insurance company. 27. The age of the deceased was about 30 years.The amount of compensaton has been computed on the basis of notional income of the deceased i.e. Rs. 15,000/- per annum by using multiplier of 18 and 1/3rd amout was deducted as personal expenses of the deceased. The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,87,000/- only to the petitioners as compensation, which cannot be said to be excessive. 28. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on evidence available on record and there is no sufficient or valid ground to interfere in the impugned award dated 01-11-1997. 29. The appeal is dismissed with costs and the impugned award dated 01-11-1997 is confirmed. 28. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the view that the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal are based on evidence available on record and there is no sufficient or valid ground to interfere in the impugned award dated 01-11-1997. 29. The appeal is dismissed with costs and the impugned award dated 01-11-1997 is confirmed. The appellant is directed to deposit the balance amount of compensation, if any, before the concerned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from today, failing which, the same shall be realized in accordance with law.