Judgment This is an appeal directed against the judgment and award dated 15.04.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in MAC No.202/1992. In a freak incident occurred on 07.01.1991 involving a truck bearing No.MTG-5604, one Keshaorao Golait lost his life. It was a day of immersion of Lord Ganesh idol. The deceased was watching procession by standing in front of his house. While the offending vehicle was being taken in reverse direction, the deceased came under the rear wheels and died. On account of his death, his widow and children lodged the claim. 2. The learned tribunal allowed the application and directed respondent nos.1, 2 and 4 jointly and severally to pay Rs.50,000/-to the claimants inclusive of no fault liability. 3. The appellant is original respondent no.1. It is contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing valid driving license and, therefore, no liability ought to have been saddled on them. According to them, the owner of the vehicle admitted in the written statement that the driver was not possessing valid driving license. 4. The written statement filed by respondent no.1-owner of the vehicle is at Exh.-19. It was her case that one Bharat Sukhlal Shrivastav caused the accident, however, he was not engaged as driver. In the ill-fated truck, the idol of Lord Ganesha was being carried for immersion. The driver, who was engaged by her, had gone out and taking advantage of his absence, the said Bharat Sukhlal Shrivastava, who was arrayed as respondent no.2,drove the vehicle in a reverse direction. However, it was not pleaded that the person who drove the vehicle was not possessing valid driving license. 5. Even, the appellant-original respondent no.4, vide Exh. 21, pleaded as follows: "It is respectfully submitted that at the time of accident no authorised person as a driver was driving the vehicle. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle committed a breach of condition of insurance and breach of the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and rules. Hence, the petition as against this respondent needs to be dismissed in the interest of justice." It means that it has not been categorically pleaded that the said Bharat was not holding valid license. Presumably, this seems to be the reason for the learned tribunal in not framing the issue on this point. Be that as it may. 6. Hence, the petition as against this respondent needs to be dismissed in the interest of justice." It means that it has not been categorically pleaded that the said Bharat was not holding valid license. Presumably, this seems to be the reason for the learned tribunal in not framing the issue on this point. Be that as it may. 6. Before the tribunal, PW1-Sakhubai original claimant no.1 examined herself. There is no other oral evidence. Mr. Pophaly, learned counsel for the appellant, invited my attention to the copy of the charge-sheet (Exh.-44) and the FIR (Exh.45). It shows that the said Bharat was charged with an offence punishable under Sections 304(A), 337, 338, 427 of the IPC. He was not charged with an offence of driving the vehicle without license. That means, there is nothing on record to suggest that the said Bharat Sukhlal had driven the vehicle without holding valid driving license. In case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and ors.; (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 297. Their Lordships held as follows: "The proposition of law is no longer res integra that the person who alleges breach must prove the same. The insurance company is, thus, required to establish the said breach by cogent evidence..." In view of the aforesaid legal position, the learned Tribunal was right in directing the appellant to satisfy the award. Appeal lacks merit and is dismissed. Parties are left to their own costs.