JUDGMENT : R.P. DHOLARIA, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 20.4.2015 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Rajkot in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 1270 of 2010 wherein the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs. 2,66,290/- to the claimants. 2. The appellant has, inter-alia, contended that when the claim petition was preferred under the provisions of section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short), learned Tribunal was required to record the finding as regards to negligence on the part of the deceased himself as he himself was driving the vehicle in question. It is further contended that driver Virjibhai Devshibhai was not duly licensed to drive the vehicle in question and, therefore, there is clear breach of the terms and conditions of the policy and hence, no liability could have been fastened upon the appellant-insurance company. 3. This Court has heard Ms. Shimoli Jhaveri, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr. Mehul Shah, learned advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Though served, none appears for respondent No. 7. 4. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the impugned judgment and award, it appears that this is an appeal preferred against the award passed by learned Tribunal under section 163-A of the Act. Therefore, taking into consideration the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 163-A of the Act, the claimant shall not be required to plead or establish the death or permanent disablement in respect of which the claim has been made was due to any wrongful act or neglect or default of the owner of the vehicle or vehicles concerned or of any other person. The aforesaid provisions of law are very clear that when the claim petition is filed under section 163-A of the Act, the claimant is not required either to plead or to establish negligence of the party to the proceedings. The aforesaid provisions of law are very clear that when the claim petition is filed under section 163-A of the Act, the claimant is not required either to plead or to establish negligence of the party to the proceedings. In this view of the matter, the first contention raised by learned advocate for the insurance company that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and due to his own fault, the accident occurred and, therefore, the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased cannot take advantage of the wrong of the deceased is not acceptable for the simple reason that the policy in question came to be produced during the course of trial before learned Tribunal which clearly indicates that the insurance company has already recovered premium covering the risk of the paid driver so far as the vehicle in question is concerned. 5. So far as the second contention of learned advocate for the appellant as regards whether the deceased was duly licensed or not is concerned, the insurance company while filing the written statement at Exh.14, more particularly, in paragraph 18, the insurance company has contended that the deceased who was driving vehicle No. GJ-3A-V-494 at the time of accident was not duly licensed to drive the said vehicle and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation. After taking the aforesaid contention in the written statement, it appears that the insurance company has satisfied itself in putting the question during the course of cross examination to the applicant-Devshi Ukabhai. In the cross examination, the said witness has admitted that the deceased was holding licence, but he did not bring it today. Further, in paragraph 4, he has also deposed that his deceased son was driving rickshaw for about seven years and he was holding licence to drive the vehicle and that licence used to remain with him. 6. It can also be seen from the record that the appellant-insurance company was satisfied with addressing the letter to his insured Somabhai Aajabhai who was registered owner for production of licence, but he did not produce any licence and, therefore, the insurance company contended that adverse inference should be drawn as the owner did not produce any licence of the deceased. Further more, while considering this appeal at the admission stage, learned advocate for the appellant contended that the deceased was not duly licensed and in that regard, this Court vide order dated 7.1.2016 directed the appellant to requisite the papers in the nature of Form No. 54 as provided under the Act from the competent authority. In response to the aforesaid order, Ms. Jhaveri submits that the insurance company has requisited the aforesaid information by resorting to the provisions under the Right to Information Act from Jasdan Police Station. She further submitted that upon search from the police papers, no such driving licence was available and, therefore, the police is not in a position to send the licence of the deceased. 7. The aforesaid answer given by the concerned police station in pursuance of the query raised under the Right to Information Act could not establish whether the deceased was holding licence or not. The fact remains that when the appellant insurance company has taken up the contention that the deceased was not holding licence or not duly licensed to drive the vehicle in question, the insurance company was required to resort to the provisions of the law as provided under the procedural law for production of such document on record or the record even from the RTO authority whether the deceased was licensed to drive the vehicle or not, but the appellant insurance company has not done anything so far to prove whether the deceased was duly licensed or not. In this view of the matter, the second contention also having no merit cannot be accepted. 8. Under the circumstances, the appeal is merit-less and hence the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed. The Registry is directed to return the R & P, if any, forthwith to the learned Tribunal. 9. In view of the above order, the Civil Application does not survive and stands disposed of accordingly.