JUDGMENT : S.C. Sinho, J.:- Now, I will discuss about the objections raised by insurance company in M.A. No.242/2009 and M.A. No.5243/2009 Shri Ashish Vaidya has submitted that owner of offending tractor did not produce licence and owner Of the offending vehicle tractor Shri Sukkan who is illiterate tribal villager appeared as a witness but was unable to say that from which R.T.O. Office for which vehicle licence was shown to him by his driver who is exparte before the Tribunal, therefore, at the most Insurance company should be permitted to satisfy the award with condition to pay and recover from driver and owner, however it is not disputed that on the date of incident offending tractor was insured with the insurance company as per Ex.D/1 covernote. Tribunal has very elaborately discussed in para 9 of the impugned award and rightly held that it was sole duty of insurance company to prove that driver was having no valid driving licence in the present case. Driver was exparte therefore, aforesaid burden cannot be fastened on owner and neither any adverse inference can be taken against the evidence of Sukkan who is illiterate and member of scheduled tribe. The benefit of beneficial legislation must go to the claimant who are needy and sufferer rather than to the insurance company. The onus to prove that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid licence to drive the vehicle on the date of the accident was on the Insurance Company and in the present case, the Insurance Company has failed to discharge the said onus. The Supreme Court in the matter of Narcinva V. Kamat and another Vs. Alfredo Antoniao Doe Martins and others, reported in 1985 ACJ 397, has held that non-production of the licence by the driver does not exonerate the Insurance-Company and the Insurance-Company in such case is liable to indemnify the award.