JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. This appeal has been filed against award dated 12.8.2011 passed in M.A.C. RBT/FTC No. 18-R/2 of 2008/05 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, Camp at Rohru whereby appellant insurance company has been directed to pay amount of compensation amounting to Rs. 3,43,400/- with interest @ 9% per annum from date of petition till realization with costs assessed at Rs. 5000/- to claimants-respondents No. 1 to 4 with right to recover the same from respondent No. 5 owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. 2. I have heard learned counsel for appellant as well as counsel representing claimants-respondents No. 1 to 4. Owner and driver of vehicle involved in accident i.e. respondents No. 5 and 6 have been duly served, but for no representation on their behalf, they have been proceeded exparte. 3. Award has been assailed on two counts. First, the person driving the truck involved in accident, at the time of incident, was not in possession of a valid and effective driving licence to drive the said vehicle. Second, there was no valid and effective insurance of the truck, existing between appellant company and owner of vehicle respondent No. 5 for the reason that premium cheque issued to have insurance of the vehicle in question was dishonoured much prior to date of accident and intimation regarding cancellation of policy, on account of dishonour of cheque, was sent to respondent No. 5 owner of the vehicle as well as to the concerned Registering and Licencing Authority (in short R&LA) through registered letter. 4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 supported award passed by the Motor Accident Clams Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the MACT), Shimla for the reasons assigned to pass the award by MACT. 5. Learned counsel for appellant company submits that in present case no driving licence was produced or placed on record by the owner or driver and therefore, the MACT has committed a mistake by holding that onus to prove that driver was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident to ply a goods vehicle was upon appellant company, for the reasons that onus ought to have been shifted upon insurance company, only in case some driving licence would have placed on record. 6. 6. The MACT had framed issue No. 4 with respect to driving licence of the driver, which reads as under:- ……………… 4. Whether Sh. Lokinder Singh was not holding andpossession a valid and effective driving licence to drive the truck, as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR3. ………………. 7. Appellant company was respondent No. 3 in the claim petition and onus to prove issue No. 4 supra, framed at the instance of appellant (respondent No. 3 in petition), was upon appellant insurance company. Therefore, plea that onus would have been shifted upon appellant insurance company only on production of copy of driving licence is not sustainable. 8. Owner, while appearing as RW-3, has specifically stated that Lokinder Singh, who was engaged driver by him to drive vehicle in question, had been driving vehicles prior to his employment with him and he was having a valid driving licence. Despite categorical and specific stand of RW-3 owner of vehicle, in his statement that Lokinder Singh driver engaged by him was having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question, no question disputing the said plea of owner has been put to him in cross-examination conducted on behalf of appellant insurance company. It is also settled law that non-cross examination of a witness on a certain point deposed by the said witness in examination in chief amounts to admission of version of the said witness (See Para 40 of Laxmi Bai through LR’s and another Vs. Bhagwant Bua through LR’s and others (2013) 14 SCC 97) followed in para 14 of Gian Chand and Other Vs. State of Haryana (2013) 4SCC 420 9. It is settled Law that pleadings not substantiated by leading evidence, can not be stated to be proved. Stand/case of a party to lis is constructed by pleadings, but pleadings are no substitute for proof. Pleadings are to be proved by leading relevant and admissible evidence. In absence of evidence, pleadings can not be considered to be proved. (See para 19 of Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 100 and Para 1 of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and Others, (2014) 10 SCC 473 ). 10. Pleadings are to be proved by leading relevant and admissible evidence. In absence of evidence, pleadings can not be considered to be proved. (See para 19 of Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Bangalore Vs. S. Mani and Others, (2005) 5 SCC 100 and Para 1 of Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer and Others, (2014) 10 SCC 473 ). 10. Though, in reply appellant company has taken preliminary objection that person driving vehicle involved in the accident was not holding a valid and effective licence to drive said vehicle, but no evidence to substantiate this objection has been led by appellant company. 11. RW-2 Rajeev Dhiman, Administrative Officer of appellant company, examined as witness on behalf of appellant company, is conspicuously silent on this issue. He has not uttered even a single word substantiating the plea taken in reply that driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective licence at the time of accident to drive the vehicle in question. 12. As evident from issue framed, appellant company had to lead positive evidence to prove the issue that driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective licence, but no efforts have ever been made by appellant company including issuing notice to driver to appear and/or cause to produce his Driving Licence in the Court or opting for any other effort to call him in the witness box or to dispute the claim of owner that Lokinder Singh, driver of the vehicle, was having valid licence. Therefore, plea of appellant company on this issue is not sustainable. 13. Appellant company has successfully proved that cheque, issued against the insurance policy for insuring vehicle in question, was dishonoured prior to accident. However, sending the information, about cancellation of insurance policy for dishonour of cheque, has not been duly proved by appellant company. 14. RW-2 in his statement stated that cheque Ext. RW- 1/A was deposited with Punjab National Bank, Solan which was dishonoured and after dishonour of the said cheque, appellant had informed insured and R&LA Rohru through registered post. He produced a copy of information Ex. RW-2/B, but neither postal receipt about posting registered letter to insured and concerned R&LA nor acknowledgement of delivery thereof to them or certification from postal authorities proving the fact of sending registered letter to them, has been placed on record. He produced a copy of information Ex. RW-2/B, but neither postal receipt about posting registered letter to insured and concerned R&LA nor acknowledgement of delivery thereof to them or certification from postal authorities proving the fact of sending registered letter to them, has been placed on record. Therefore, intimation about cancellation of insurance policy to all concerned i.e. insured and concerned R&LA has not been duly proved on the record. 15. The MACT has correctly appreciated the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in case titled Deddappa & Ors. V. The Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in AIR 2008 Supreme Court 767 wherein it was held that if contract of insurance has been cancelled and all concerned have been intimated thereabout then insurance company would not be liable to satisfy the claim. In present case, cancellation of contract of insurance has been proved, but intimation thereabout to all concerned is not proved. 16. Learned counsel for respondents No. 1 to 4 has relied upon judgment passed by this Court in case titled National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Naresh Kumar and Others reported in Latest HLJ 2008 (HP) 155, wherein in similar case, despite the fact that Insurance Company had sent letter through registered post informing the owner about cancellation of policy due to the dishonour of cheque, Insurance Company was directed to indemnify the award and pay the amount to claimants with right to recover the amount, paid by it to the third parties, from the insured with observation that the sympathy of the court may be with the third parties, but there can be no misdirected sympathy with the owner of the truck whose cheque has bounced. 17. No other point or issue is either urged or raised. In view of above discussion, I am of considered view that the MACT has completely and correctly appreciated the material on record. There is no infirmity, illegality or perversity therein. The MACT has rightly directed appellant company to pay amount of compensation as awarded by impugned award to claimants with right to recover the same from respondent no. 5 owner of vehicle who has chosen not to assail the award of the MACT and even has not preferred to be represented herein in present appeal. There is no merit in present appeal as no ground for interference is made out. Accordingly appeal is dismissed. 5 owner of vehicle who has chosen not to assail the award of the MACT and even has not preferred to be represented herein in present appeal. There is no merit in present appeal as no ground for interference is made out. Accordingly appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.