JUDGMENT : Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 31.10.2013, wherein an amount of Rs. 8,59,000/- had been awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jammu in favour of the claimants. The award has been challenged to a limited extent. It was urged that the Tribunal had wrongly decided Issue No. 3 in favour of the claimants and against the appellants. 2. Issue No. 3 framed by the Tribunal is as under:- "3. Whether the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and whether there was violation of terms and conditions of policy of insurance? If so to what effect?" 3. On a perusal of the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, it appears that no evidence at all was led by the appellant-Insurance Company before the Tribunal to prove that the offending vehicle was infact being driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. 4. The Tribunal, accordingly, held that Insurance Company could not absolve itself of its liability to indemnify the insured. 5. The fact that no evidence was led by the Insurance Company is also admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant, however, it was urged by him that the burden of proof lay on the claimants to prove that there was no violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. 6. As to who has to discharge the burden of proof infact is covered under Sections 102 & 103 of the Evidence Act, Svt. 1977, which prescribes as under Section-102: On whom burden of proof lies "The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side." Section-103: Burden of proof as to particular fact "The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person." 7. On reading of above Sections, it becomes clear that the burden of proof lay on the appellant-Insurance Company, which it failed to discharge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal thus, did not commit any illegality in deciding issue No. 3 against the appellant. 8. On reading of above Sections, it becomes clear that the burden of proof lay on the appellant-Insurance Company, which it failed to discharge before the Tribunal. The Tribunal thus, did not commit any illegality in deciding issue No. 3 against the appellant. 8. In view of above, the instant appeal is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected MP. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant(s) after proper verification.