JUDGMENT B. KEMAL PASHA, J. 1. The third respondent Insurance Company in O.P. (M.V.) No. 29 of 2004 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri, has come up in appeal, by challenging award dated 6.6.2008 passed by the Tribunal. 2. It is a case wherein a minor boy, who was walking through the extreme road margin, was knocked down by the autorikshaw, being driven by the first respondent before the court below. It was proved that he was not holding any driving license at all. The Tribunal has also entered a finding to the effect that he was not holding any driving license and that the accident had occurred on account of his negligent driving. After entering a further finding that the said driver of the autorikshaw was proceeded against through a chargesheet filed by the police for the offence under Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicle Act, for want of license, by relying on the decision in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Nirarudeen, 2008 (2) KLT 291 , the court below has not directed the registered owner of the vehicle to pay back the amount to the Insurance Company. According to the appellant, the Tribunal ought to have passed the award by directing the appellant to pay the amount and permitting the appellant to recover that liability from the registered owner of the vehicle. 3. Heard the learned counsel, Smt. K.S. Santhi, for the appellant and the learned counsel, Shri P. Samsuddeen, for the respondent. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has invited the attention of this court to the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh, 2004 (1) KLT 781 (SC), wherein it was held in paragraph 102 that mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. It was further held therein that in order 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 duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. 5. 5. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, the insurer had not pleaded and proved that the insured was guilty of negligence and/or failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter. 6. This is a case wherein the driver of the autorikshaw, who was not having any driving license, drove the autorkshaw by carrying passengers. The registered owner of the autorikshaw has no case that the autorikshaw was driven by the driver without his knowledge or consent. In cases wherein accident occurs due to extraneous circumstances like unforseen mechanical defect or other unforeseen incidents or solely due to the negligence of other vehicles on the road, it can be said that such cases are not occurring on account of the absence of the driving license. In this particular case, a person who was not having a driving license at all, drove the vehicle and caused the vehicle to hit on a minor boy who was walking through the extreme road margin. 7. It seems that copy of the final report filed by the police was produced by the insurer before the Tribunal and the same was marked as Ext.B2. Ext.B2 will clearly reveal that the accident had occurred on account of want of knowledge of the person who drove the autorikshaw to drive the vehicle. 8. It seems that the person who drove the autorikshaw was callously rash and criminally negligent. He was not holding any driving license. The principle of res ipsa loquitur can be applied to the present circumstances involved in this case. It clearly shows that the incident had occurred as the person who drove the autorikshaw did not know how to drive the vehicle. That is evident from the context and from all the circumstances. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the incident had occurred on account of the want of knowledge to drive. Therefore, the absence of driving license to such a person speaks volumes against him, as well as the registered owner of the vehicle, who entrusted the vehicle to such a person who did not know how to drive. Matters being so, any further evidence in this present case in order to conclude that the registered owner had not exercised reasonable care in the matter, is not required. Matters being so, any further evidence in this present case in order to conclude that the registered owner had not exercised reasonable care in the matter, is not required. He was not vigilant or diligent, and therefore he was guilty of negligence in entrusting the autorikshaw with the person who was not holding any license, and who did not know how to drive the autorikshaw properly. Matters being so, the decision in Swaran Singh's case (supra) has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Therefore, the impugned award is liable to be modified by directing the Insurance company to pay the award amount to the petitioner and thereby permitting the appellant to recover the liability from the registered owner, who is the respondent herein. In the result, this M.A.C.A. is allowed and the impugned award is modified. The appellant insurer shall pay the award amount and then to recover the liability from the registered owner.