JUDGMENT : SABINA, J. 1. Appellant Insurance Company has filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 17.11.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence to drive the motorcycle as he was having driving licence authorising him to drive light motor vehicle only. In support of his argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha & Ors. 2008 (2) T.A.C. 801 (S.C.), wherein it was held as under :- "11. For the purpose of determination of the above said issue, we may notice relevant provisions of the MV Act. Section 2 of the MV Act deals with definitions. Sub-section 9 of Section 2 defines 'driver' to include 'in relation to a motor vehicle which is drawn by another motor vehicle, the person who acts as a steersman of the drawn vehicle.' Sub-section (10) of Section 2 defines 'driving licence' to mean-'the licence issued by a competent authority under Chapter II authorizing the person specified therein to drive, otherwise than as a learner, a motor vehicle or a motor vehicle of any specified class or description.' Section 3 in Chapter II of the MV Act prescribes necessity for driving licence which reads as under:- "(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than [a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 75] unless his driving licence specifically entitled him to do so. (2) The conditions subject to which sub-section (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government." 12. Section 5 prescribes that no owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 to drive the vehicle. Section 5 prescribes that no owner or person in charge of a motor vehicle shall cause or permit any person who does not satisfy the provisions of Section 3 or Section 4 to drive the vehicle. Driving licence has to be granted by the licencing authority having jurisdiction in the area to any person who is not, for the time being, disqualified of holding or obtaining a driving licence in terms of Section 9 of the MV Act. Section 10 prescribes forms and contents of the licences to drive which reads as under:- "(1) Every learner's license and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under Section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:- (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) road roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description." 13. Driving licence has to be issued by the licencing authority on presentation of the application in Form IV as prescribed by Rule 14 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. The application form shall be accompanied by documents specified in the said Rule. The applicant has to apply for a licence in terms of Form IV enabling him to drive a particular vehicle of the description as specified in Section 10 of the MV Act, 1988. The licencing authority shall grant driving licence to the applicant in terms of Form VI and Rule 16(1) of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. xxxx xxxxx 18. In the light of the above-settled proposition of law, the appellant insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat who admittedly had no valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving totally different class of vehicle which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act." 3. The scooterist was possessing driving licence of driving HMV and he was driving totally different class of vehicle which act of his is in violation of Section 10(2) of the MV Act." 3. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision of this court in M/s. Kamal Motor Parts Co. Ltd. And Anr. v. New India Insurance Co. and Anr. 2010 (4) T.A.C. 964 (Raj.), wherein it was held as under :- "8. In the light of above pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the Insurance Company respondent No. 1 cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant. Learned Tribunal has rightly absolved the Insurance Company of its responsibility. Undeniably, the appellant No. 2 was in possession of a license to drive the Light Motor Vehicle at the relevant time and he had no valid license to drive the two wheeler scooter on the day of accident. The judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is perfectly just and proper and suffers from no legal or factual infirmity. I am in full agreement with the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal and in my opinion, the impugned award does not warrant any intervention." 4. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants No. 1 to 3 has opposed the appeal and has submitted that the Insurance Company had failed to prove on record driving licence of the driver in support of its plea. 5. In the present case the question that requires consideration is as to whether respondent No. 4 was having a valid driving licence to drive a motorcycle. It is the case of the Insurance Company that driver was having driving licence authorising him only to drive light motor vehicle and not a motorcycle. Burden to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident was on the Insurance Company. However, a perusal of the record of the Tribunal reveals that the driving licence of the driver had not been got exhibited. Since the driving licence of the driver had not been exhibited, the Insurance Company had failed to discharge its burden to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. Since the driving licence of the driver had not been exhibited, the Insurance Company had failed to discharge its burden to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle in question. In these circumstances the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant fails to advance the case of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, learned Tribunal had rightly held that the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the insured. Dismissed.