JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company aggrieved by the award dated 9.3.2010 in MVOP No. 1643 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows : On 23.5.2006, the minor claimant, by name Munagada Chinni Kumari, a student, along with her relatives, boarded an auto bearing No. AP 31Y 926 at Ratnalapalem Village to proceed towards Narsipatnam. When the auto reached Narsipatnam, the driver of the said auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed. Consequently, the auto turned turtle at R & B Bungalow and due to the impact, the claimant sustained injury and one child died on the spot. On a report lodged with regard to the accident, the Police Kotauratla registered a case in Crime No. 20 of 2006 under Sections 304-A, 338 and 337 IPC and after completing the investigation filed charge-sheet against the driver of the auto. The auto was also subjected to examination by the Motor Vehicle inspector (MVI), who endorsed against the column 'particulars of licence' as 'no driving licence' to the driver of the auto. 3. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, the father of the claimant and herself were examined as PWs. 1 and 2. Exs.A-1 to A-5 were marked. On behalf of respondents, RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-5 were marked. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the D.P. awarding compensation of Rs.27,000/- to the claimant with proportionate costs and subsequent interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till its realization. Since the claimant is a minor girl, the said amount was directed to be kept a Fixed Deposit in any nationalized bank. 4. Heard. 5. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 2 is the owner of auto and it was insured with the respondent No. 3 - Insurance Company, who is the appellant herein. It is also not in dispute that EX.B-1 is the attested copy of the policy, EX.B2 is the legal notice issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Exs.B3 and B4 are the acknowledgments of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It is also not in dispute that EX.B-1 is the attested copy of the policy, EX.B2 is the legal notice issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Exs.B3 and B4 are the acknowledgments of respondent Nos.1 and 2. It appears that the Insurance Company - appellant herein had issued a legal notice to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to produce the driving licence of respondent No.1 driver of the auto, but there was no reply from them. As far as the finding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of respondent No.1 - the driver of the auto, the same is not in dispute in this appeal. 6. As far as the amount awarded to the claimant i.e., Rs.27,000/- is concerned, the same appears to be not in dispute. The only dispute is whether the Insurance Company - appellant herein, is liable or it has to be exonerated on the ground that respondent No.1 did not produce the driving licence as demanded by the Insurance Company. Having regard to the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the Tribunal, the Tribunal observed in Para No.17 of its order as under: "As seen from the evidence of RWs.1 and 2, RI lost his driving licence in the accident only and he told• the same to the police and motor vehicle inspector also. The contents of Ex.A-1 and MVI report also reveal that R I did not produce driving licence. R3 insurance company did not make any efforts to know whether driver RI was having driving licence at the time of accident and whether he lost it in the said accident from RTA authorities. R3 neither took any steps to examine any officials from R.T.A.'s office to support his contention nor filed the investigator's report into the Court to show that RI drove the offending vehicle without having any valid driving licence at the time of accident. As such, the burden shifts on R3 company to prove that at the time of accident RI was not having valid driving licence. But to discharge burden, R3 did not choose to examine any official from RTA office and R3 did not even address a letter to RTO office to obtain clarification about the driving licence of RI." 7. As such, the burden shifts on R3 company to prove that at the time of accident RI was not having valid driving licence. But to discharge burden, R3 did not choose to examine any official from RTA office and R3 did not even address a letter to RTO office to obtain clarification about the driving licence of RI." 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant referring to the contents of the copy of the charge-sheet - Ex.A-5, submits that the police after completing investigation have categorically stated that the driver has got no licence. He also submits that the Motor Vehicle Inspector has categorically stated in his report - Ex.A-3 against the column 'particulars of driving licence' that the driver of the auto has no driving licence. 8. The driver, who is examined as RW2, deposed that he had, lost his driving licence in the accident. The Tribunal noted in Para No.16 as under: "RI driver of the offending auto is examined as RW2 and he stated that police filed FIR against him and a crimina1 case is also filed. In the cross examination he stated that he also received injuries in the accident, that he was she to Narsipatnam Hospital and from thereto K.G.H., and he took treatment for 45 days, that he was in coma after the accident, 'that when police asked him about his license he told that he lost it in the accident, that he also told the same thing to the Motor vehicle Inspector when he was asked about the driving license" 9. Learned Counsel for the claimant referring to Section 181 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short, 'the M.V. Act') submits that police charged the driver under Section 181 of the M.V. Act, when he failed to produce his licence. Section 181 of the M.V. Act is as follows: "whoever, drives the motor vehicle in contravention to Section 3 or Section 4 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three months or with fine which may extend to Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) or with both," 10. As seen from the contents of the charge-sheet and the accident report, the Motor Vehicle Inspector and Police had come to the conclusion that the driver was not having valid driving licence on the date of accident. As seen from the contents of the charge-sheet and the accident report, the Motor Vehicle Inspector and Police had come to the conclusion that the driver was not having valid driving licence on the date of accident. Probably for the same reason, he was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 181 of the M.V. Act. But, it has to be seen that when the police alleges about a particular offence in a charge-sheet, whether the same has to be treated as proved. It is settled law that allegation made by a Police Officer in the charge-sheet, cannot be treated as a fact proved. A charge-sheet may contain several allegations against an accused person under different offences. It only shows that after completing investigation, the Investigating Officer seems prima facie satisfied that, the accused has committed the alleged offence and filed charge-sheet. It is settled law that whatever allegations that have been made by the Police cannot be treated as a gospel truth, and the same have to be proved by separate and independent evidence in a Court of law when the matter is before Tribunal and mere making of charge-sheet or report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector report is not sufficient. The allegations made in charge-sheet and Motor Vehicle Inspector report have to be proved by adducing separate evidence. Even if those documents are marked, the contents of those documents merely show the opinion of those concerned officers and on what basis those officers had come to such conclusion has to be again proved by examining those officers and other relevant oral and documentary evidence. The basis for the opinion of those officers may be the inaction of driver to produce the driving licence when they demanded to produce the driving licence. The case of the driver is that he had driving licence but lost it at the time of accident. In the present case, at least the Police Officer, who investigated and filed charge-sheet, is not examined. 11. As far as the Motor Vehicle Inspector is concerned, the Motor Vehicle Inspector also seems to have made endorsement as 'no driving license' to the driver. But, admittedly, the Motor Vehicle Inspector is also not examined.' In this case, the Insurance Company seems to have summoned RW2 - the driver of the auto. 11. As far as the Motor Vehicle Inspector is concerned, the Motor Vehicle Inspector also seems to have made endorsement as 'no driving license' to the driver. But, admittedly, the Motor Vehicle Inspector is also not examined.' In this case, the Insurance Company seems to have summoned RW2 - the driver of the auto. As far as RW2 the driver of the auto is concerned, his case is that he was having valid driving licence, but he had lost it in the accident. Whether the driver had lost his driving licence in the accident, or from the beginning whether he was not having valid driving licence, is the question that has to be decided. If he had lost the driving licence in the accident, then it has to be held that the owner alone is not liable to pay compensation and the Insurance Company has also -to indemnify the owner. If the owner knowing very well that the driver had no driving licence, then he is responsible to pay compensation and the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. 12. The peculiar circumstance in this case is that the evidence adduced by the Insurance Company i.e., the evidence of RW2 - driver itself shows that he asserted that he was having valid driving licence, but he had lost it in the accident. Thus, the fact remains that he could not produce the licence when the vehicle was inspected by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and also before the police. Probably that may be the reason for the endorsement said to have been made by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and also by the Sub-Inspector of Police in the charge-sheet. 13. In the above circumstances, the observations of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company ought to have taken steps to examine the officials of the Road Transport Authority to support its contention, assumes importance. The Tribunal seems to have observed that the Insurance Company failed to mark the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector. In view of the same it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error and the observations of the Tribunal are unreasonable. The Tribunal seems to have observed that the Insurance Company failed to mark the report of Motor Vehicle Inspector. In view of the same it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed a manifest error and the observations of the Tribunal are unreasonable. Since there is no evidence in this case to show that the owner of the vehicle - Respondent No. 2 knowing very well that the driver had no driving licence on the date of accident engaged him as driver, it cannot be said that the Insurance Company can be exonerated. In view of the above discussion, it has to be held that there are no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, filed in this appeal shall stand closed.