JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.:- This is an appeal brought by New India Assurance Company Ltd., the insurer against the award dated 13.03.2013 passed by Learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ludhiana (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide which the claim petition of Rajni Bala and others for compensation on the death of Vijay Kumar has been allowed and a sum of Rs.10,90,000/- has been awarded as compensation. The appellant has been made responsible for satisfaction of the award. By way of this appeal, the appellant wants to shake off its liability on the ground that the liability could not be fastened on the appellant for want of non-production of driving licence by the driver on the record. 2. The facts of the case are not required to be noticed in this case because whatever the facts are involved, they would appear during the discussion. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that though responsibility is of the insurer to prove that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, yet the same is true only when the driver produces the driving licence. According to him, the Ahlmad of the court holding trial in the case registered by way of FIR No.13 dated 16.01.2010 at Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana was called and he produced the challan which clearly showed that the driver was also accused of driving the vehicle without a licence and it is shown that he was not holding a driving licence. According to him, in these circumstances, the driver did not have a licence and the onus of the insurer to prove that the driver was not holding a valid driving licence stood discharged. 4. It is true that the driver has been proceeded under section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act for not possessing a driving licence. However, that charge against the driver does not stand proved. What evidence the driver would bring in defence to this charge is yet to be seen. 5. The appellant did not give notice to the driver of the offending vehicle for production of the driving licence. In order to discharge the onus lying on the appellant, it was required of it to give notice to the driver to produce his driving licence. 5. The appellant did not give notice to the driver of the offending vehicle for production of the driving licence. In order to discharge the onus lying on the appellant, it was required of it to give notice to the driver to produce his driving licence. Without taking this course, learned counsel for the appellant could not claim that it has discharged the onus lying on it to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence. 6. No other point was urged before me. 7. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed in limine. ---------0.B.S.0------------ ——————————