ORAL JUDGMENT : This appeal takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 15/01/2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Washim in M.A.C.P. No. 171/2006. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till its realization to the respondents-claimants. Being aggrieved thereby, appellant-insurance company has preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts of the appeal can be stated as follows : Ashok Vaidya, husband of respondent no.1 and father of respondent nos.2 to 4, was owner of motorcycle bearing no. MH31C5548, which was insured with appellant for third party risk and also covered personal accident insurance of Ashok for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/only. On 26/04/2006, while Ashok was driving the said motorcycle, on account of his rash and negligent act, the motorcycle slipped. As a result Ashok fell down and died on the spot. 3. On account of untimely death of Ashok, his legal heirs – respondent nos.1 to 4 herein, filed the petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/. Petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter will be referred to as “Act” for convenience). 4. This petition came to be resisted by appellant-insurance company, contending inter alia that as deceased Ashok was not having driving licence, there was a breach of insurance policy, and hence, appellant is not liable to pay any amount of compensation, especially because the accident, which resulted into his death, has occurred on account of his own rash and negligent driving. It was submitted that, though the insurance policy covered the third party risk and also covered personal accident insurance of the deceased to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/, considering the breach of policy, insurance company cannot be held liable. 5. In support of her claim, respondent no.1, claimant examined herself. Whereas on behalf of appellant, evidence of two witnesses was adduced. Out of them, first witness is Deepak Bhutada, who was appointed to investigate as to whether the deceased was having driving licence or not, and second witness was Chandrashekhar Pande, Administrative Officer of appellant-insurance company, who has deposed about the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which was issued in the name of the deceased. 6. Out of them, first witness is Deepak Bhutada, who was appointed to investigate as to whether the deceased was having driving licence or not, and second witness was Chandrashekhar Pande, Administrative Officer of appellant-insurance company, who has deposed about the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which was issued in the name of the deceased. 6. On appreciation of their evidence, the learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that as the insurance policy covered the personal accident insurance of the deceased to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/, appellant was liable to pay the said amount of compensation to the respondents. Accordingly, Tribunal has allowed the claim of respondents partly to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/with interest at the rate of 6% per annum thereon. 7. While challenging this judgment and order of the Tribunal, the submission of learned counsel for appellant is that appellant-insurance company would have been liable to pay this amount of Rs.1,00,000/to the respondents-claimants towards the personal accident insurance of the deceased, provided there was no breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Here in this case, according to him, as there is clear breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, in view of the established fact that deceased was not having driving licence, the Tribunal committed an error in holding the appellant liable to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/to the respondents. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents has supported the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal by submitting that when there was personal accident insurance of the deceased to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/, appellant-insurance company cannot be absolved from the liability to pay the said amount to the legal heirs of the deceased. 9. In view of these rival submissions advanced before me by learned counsel for appellant and respondents, the first and foremost question necessarily arising for consideration in this appeal is, whether the deceased was having driving licence or not? If it is proved that he was not having such driving licence, then it follow that there was a breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The insurance policy of the deceased is duly proved on record through the evidence of witness no.2 of appellant, namely, Chandrashekhar Pande and it is marked as Exh.26A. The initial burden of proving that deceased was having driving licence, necessarily lies on the respondents-claimants. The insurance policy of the deceased is duly proved on record through the evidence of witness no.2 of appellant, namely, Chandrashekhar Pande and it is marked as Exh.26A. The initial burden of proving that deceased was having driving licence, necessarily lies on the respondents-claimants. However, in this case, respondent no.1, wife of deceased Ashok, has admitted in her cross-examination that she cannot say whether her husband was having driving licence of the motorcycle. She has also not produced the driving licence of the deceased nor given the details of the driving licence, if any, he was having. She has also not made any application before the Tribunal to issue witness summons to R.T.O. to produce on record the evidence to show that deceased Ashok was having such driving licence. Therefore, from her side, respondent no.1 has not produced any document to show that deceased was having such driving licence. She has also not taken any steps in that direction. 10. As against it, on behalf of the appellant, as stated above, two witnesses were examined. Out of them, one witness by name Deepak Bhutada was appointed by appellant-insurance company to investigate as to whether the deceased was having driving licence or not. He has filed on record his report (Exh.35), according to which, it was revealed that deceased was not having such driving licence. He has deposed that he has made inquiry even with the mother of the deceased, Alokabai and she has stated that deceased was not having driving licence. He has also issued notice to R.T.Os. at Washim and Akola to produce the driving licence of the deceased, if they were having or at least give some reply, but he has not received any such reply. 11. Therefore, it necessarily follows that if deceased had obtained the driving licence of the motorcycle, such driving licence would have been produced on record by the respondents or at least the details of such driving licence would have been produced by R.T.O. at Washim or Akola or by the respondents themselves. The affirmative burden was on the respondents to prove that deceased was having driving licence, which respondents had failed to discharge. Whatever the negative burden to prove that deceased was not having driving licence, was lying on the appellant, appellant has discharged the said burden. The affirmative burden was on the respondents to prove that deceased was having driving licence, which respondents had failed to discharge. Whatever the negative burden to prove that deceased was not having driving licence, was lying on the appellant, appellant has discharged the said burden. In view thereof, the conclusion is inevitable that deceased was not having driving licence of the motorcycle. Hence in view of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it follows that deceased has committed the breach of terms and conditions by driving the motorcycle without having driving licence. 12. Now the next question arising for consideration is whether in case of breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, the legal heirs of the deceased can be entitled to get any amount of compensation from the appellant-insurance company? Learned counsel for respondents had, in this respect, placed reliance on the decision of the court in the case of The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt. Sunanda Ramesh Dhumone and others, in First Appeal No. 138/2006 dated 06/12/2006 by submitting that even if the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the deceased himself, as his personal accident insurance was covered by the insurance policy, the insurance company cannot get absolved from the liability to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/towards the owner and driver. 13. There can not be any two opinions about the legal proposition that if personal insurance policy is taken by deceased by paying extra premium, then under Section 163A of the Act, it was liability of the insurance company to pay such amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/to the legal heirs of the deceased. However, in the facts of the judgment on which reliance is placed, there was no such plea raised by the appellant-insurance company that deceased was not having the driving licence of motorcycle at the time of accident. Therefore, there was no such case made out also that there was breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In view thereof, the liability was fastened on insurance company to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/towards his personal accident insurance. 14. As against it, in the present case, appellant is not denying its liability of Rs.1,00,000/, but for the fact that there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, as deceased was not having driving licence. In view thereof, the liability was fastened on insurance company to pay the amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/towards his personal accident insurance. 14. As against it, in the present case, appellant is not denying its liability of Rs.1,00,000/, but for the fact that there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, as deceased was not having driving licence. Once it is held that respondents had failed to prove that deceased was having driving licence, then it follows that there was breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy, and in such eventuality, needless to state that insurance company cannot be held liable for the loss caused on account of death of deceased in the said accident. Even if it is accepted that there was personal accident insurance of the deceased, the breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy has necessarily resulted into absolving the appellant from all its liability of payment of compensation, whether it was under Section 163A of the Act or even to the extent of personal accident insurance of the deceased. 15. The impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal, therefore, holding the appellant-insurance company liable to pay the compensation of Rs.1,00,000/to respondents with future interest thereon, is hence, liable to be quashed and set aside, as it cannot be sustained in law. The observation made by the Tribunal in para no.11 that “In a claim petition under Section 163A of the Act, the point that deceased was negligent in driving the motorcycle without a valid driving licence need not be discussed at all.” is perverse in the sense that it is against the legal position. It need not be stated that not having a valid driving licence is against the terms and conditions of insurance policy, and therefore, on that very count, the insurance company becomes absolved from liability. Moreover, the claim under Section 163A of the Act is towards fault liability and not under no fault liability. Therefore, on this count also, the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal needs to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. 16. The impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside and appellant is absolved from the liability imposed by the Tribunal. 17. Therefore, on this count also, the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal needs to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, appeal is allowed. 16. The impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal is quashed and set aside and appellant is absolved from the liability imposed by the Tribunal. 17. At this stage, it is submitted by learned counsel for appellant that the entire amount of compensation is already deposited in this court along with interest accrued thereon and respondents were not permitted to withdraw the same. In view thereof, appellant is permitted to withdraw the said amount, if it is already not paid to respondents. Appellant is also permitted to withdraw the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/deposited in this court. 18. Appeal is disposed of in above terms, with no order as to costs.