JUDGMENT : H.G.RAMESH, J. Whether police charge sheet could be relied upon to hold that the driver of the Insured vehicle had no driving licence as on the date of accident? This is the question that arises for determination in this appeal and it is answered in the negative. 2. This appeal is by an Insurance Company. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.60,500/with interest thereon at 6% p.a. to the claimant for the injuries suffered by her in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 31.01.2009 due to negligent driving of the rider of the motorcycle bearing No.KA03EC6410. At the time of accident, the claimant was walking on the road. 3. In this appeal, the sole contention urged by learned counsel for the appellant–Insurance Company is that the Insured had committed breach of a condition of the insurance policy in allowing a person who was not holding a driving licence to drive the insured motorcycle, and, therefore, the claim petition should have been dismissed against the Insurance Company. He submitted that the rider of the insured motorcycle was prosecuted by the police for not holding the driving licence, and, therefore, it has to be held that he had no driving licence as on the date of accident. 4. The aforesaid contention was also urged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has rejected it with the following reasoning: “18…………………………………………………………………………............ Merely because the charge sheet is produced it does not mean that the rider of the motor cycle had no licence. Under the circumstances, the ruling relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent is not applicable to the present facts of the case. In the absence of material documents before the court, the respondent has failed to prove the defence. As such the contention raised by the respondent is not tenable under law. As such the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.” (Underlining supplied) 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the appeal, relied on an unreported decision dated 30.11.2010 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in MFA Nos.9169 & 11116 of 2005. As such the contention raised by the respondent is not tenable under law. As such the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation.” (Underlining supplied) 5. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the appeal, relied on an unreported decision dated 30.11.2010 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in MFA Nos.9169 & 11116 of 2005. He invited my attention to para Nos.7 & 8 thereof, and submitted that in the said case, the Insurance Company was exonerated of the liability on the ground that the driver of the insured vehicle was prosecuted by the police for not holding a driving licence. 6. In the context of the contention raised, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Rukmani v. New India Assurance Co. [ (1998)9 SCC 160 ], wherein the Supreme Court has stated as follows: “3. We have seen the only evidence which the Insurance Company produced in support of the plea. This is the evidence of Inspector of Police who investigated the accident. In his evidence, PW1 who was the Inspector of Police, stated in his examination-in-chief, “My enquiry revealed that the 1st respondent did not produce the licence to drive the abovesaid scooter. The 1st respondent even after my demand did not submit the licence since he was not having it.” In his cross-examination he has said that it is the Inspector of Motor Vehicles who is required to check whether the licence is there but he had not informed the Inspector of Motor Vehicles that the 1st respondent was not having a licence since he thought it was not necessary. In our view, this evidence is not sufficient to discharge the burden which was cast on the Insurance Company. It did not summon the driver of the vehicle. No record from the Road Transport Authority has also been produced. In these circumstances, the Insurance Company has not discharged the burden cast upon it under Section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The impugned order of the High Court is, therefore, set aside and the order of the Tribunal is restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.” (Underlining supplied) 7. In these circumstances, the Insurance Company has not discharged the burden cast upon it under Section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The impugned order of the High Court is, therefore, set aside and the order of the Tribunal is restored. The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.” (Underlining supplied) 7. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court extracted above and having regard to the fact that there is no evidence on record to show that the rider of the Insured motorcycle had no driving licence as on the date of accident, the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted. In my opinion, the Division Bench decision relied on by the appellant’s counsel was rendered on its own facts and no law is laid down therein. 8. To hold that the driver of the insured vehicle had no driving licence as on the date of accident, there must be clear evidence on the record of the case to that effect. Police charge sheet is no evidence to hold that the driver of the insured vehicle had no driving licence as on the date of accident. 9. In view of the above, I find no legal infirmity in the judgment of the Tribunal to warrant interference. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. 10. The amount lying in deposit with this Court shall be transferred to the Tribunal forthwith. Appeal dismissed.