JUDGMENT : B.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Insurance Company, who was non-applicant no.1 before the Tribunal. 2. Applicants Rajju Bai, Sanjay Kewat and Pinki, respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 before this Court, filed a claim petition on 18.6.2007 before the Tribunal for compensation for the death of Shrinath Kewat in the accident arising out from the use of Dumper Truck No.18-7173. In that Claim Case No.7/2009, the First Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Umariya, District Shahdol passed an award on 7.5.2009. 3. It is an admitted position that respondent no.4 Baldeo Singh is the owner of Truck No.MP18-7173 and respondent no.5 Sudhir is the Driver of offending vehicle. Both were non-applicant nos.2 and 3 before the lower Court. The Tribunal passed the award of Rs.13,69,500/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of presentation of petition i.e. 18.6.2007 against all three non-applicants. 4. It is submitted by the counsel for appellant that the vehicle was used without valid permit. Only a temporary permit was issued in favour of the owner w.e.f.4.2.2003 to 3.5.2003 while the accident took place on 2.2.2003. Therefore, no any valid permit was available on the date of accident. The Tribunal has failed to consider that the appellant had discharged his onus by producing cogent and trustworthy evidence. The Tribunal should have exonerated the appellant from liability on the ground of breach of condition of policy. 5. It is submitted by respondent nos.1, 2 and 3, who were the claimants before the Tribunal, that the Insurance Company was unsuccessful to prove his defence. It was not proved that the vehicle was using without having any valid permit. The Tribunal rightly held the Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation along with the owner and driver. 6. Respondent nos.4 and 5, who are the owner and driver and were non-applicants no.2 and 3 before the Tribunal, remained absent before this Court. Claimants/respondent nos.1 to 3 have also filed cross-objection on 29.1.2010 before this Court. It is stated that the deceased entered in service on 24.4.1984 and obtained the gross-salary of Rs.11,760/- in the month of December, 2001. His date of birth was 24.4.1960 and he was about 43 years old at the time of accident. The period of his service was upto 2020. Hence, the average pay of the deceased came to Rs.18,500/-. It is stated that the deceased entered in service on 24.4.1984 and obtained the gross-salary of Rs.11,760/- in the month of December, 2001. His date of birth was 24.4.1960 and he was about 43 years old at the time of accident. The period of his service was upto 2020. Hence, the average pay of the deceased came to Rs.18,500/-. The Tribunal erred in holding the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.9243/- in place of Rs.11,760/-. Therefore, it is requested to award the compensation of Rs.25,31,260/- with 12% interest. 7. Whether the vehicle was used without any valid permit or not? The burden of proof was on Insurance Company/respondent no.1. the Insurance Company examined his witness Jitendra Singh (D.W.1) and proved the documents, Ex.D.2 to Ex.D.6. Ex.D2 is a notice, which was given to the owner of the vehicle on 6.3.2009. The registry postal receipt is Ex.D.3 and the envelop is Ex.D.4, which received un-served. Therefore, it can be said that the aforesaid notice was not served upon the owner of the vehicle. But Ex.D.5 shows that the notice was published in daily newspaper but it appears that any permit was not produced by the owner before the Insurance Company. Ex.D.6 is the photocopy of permit, which is valid from 4.2.2003 to 3.5.2003. It means that on the date of accident i.e. 2.2.2003, there was no any valid permit. 8. In police case, some documents were seized on 4.2.2003 vide seizure memo, Ex.P.6. In this document at serial no.4, the details of seized permit is mentioned and it is stated that the permit seized was upto 3.5.2003. Therefore, this document is also supported the appellant’s case that if the owner would have another permit, then definitely that ought to be produced before the police. 9. The Tribunal held in Para 10 of the award that the document, Ex.D.6, is a temporary permit which has been issued on 3.2.2003 and was valid for the period of 4.2.2003 to 3.5.2003. While the accident took place on 2.2.2003. It means that the Tribunal also admitted the fact that on the date of accident, there was no any valid permit but the Tribunal again mentioned that the Insurance Company did not produce any document from the RTO to show that there was no any permit on the date of accident. Aforesaid view of Tribunal cannot be accepted because negative evidence cannot be produced. Aforesaid view of Tribunal cannot be accepted because negative evidence cannot be produced. Only positive evidence can be produced. It cannot be proved by the official document that any permit was not issued. Only the fact can be proved that any permit was issued. Therefore, the aforesaid observation of the Tribunal is not acceptable. 10. On the other side, the Insurance Company also filed I.A.No.5092/2018 on 13.4.2018 before this Court. The Company seeks permission to file some documents, which are related to the permit. The affidavit of B.N. Mishra, Deputy Manager, is also filed along with aforesaid application. The documents are related to the subject matter, therefore, the application is acceptable. Vide Letter No.DKV/17-18/72 dated 10.10.2017 the information regarding permit was demanded under RTI Act by Dhan Kumar Waswani and the information has been given vide Letter no.1641, dated 15.1.2018 by the RTO. RTO informed that the office searched the record of the permit related to the Vehicle No.MP18-7173 but any information was not found in RTO office. Therefore, it appears that any permit was not issued in favour of the owner of vehicle from the RTO office. 11. Therefore, the Insurance Company discharged his liability and success to prove the plea that the vehicle owner was not having any permit on the date of incident. In the aforesaid situation, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the compensation. Because the breach of the policy condition is proved, therefore, the owner and driver are liable to pay the compensation and the Tribunal committed error by holding the liability of Insurance Company to pay the compensation. 12. As far as cross-objections are concerned, it appears from the evidence of Smt. Rajju Bai that she admitted in Para 11 of her statement that the pay-slip of year 2001 has been submitted. No any pay-slip related to the period of accident has been submitted. The trial court assessed the income of deceased in Para 13. No any perversity is found in the observation made by the Tribunal in Paras 13 to 16. Therefore, cross-objections having no force. 13. Hence, the cross-objections are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent of liability of Insurance Company. It is held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Therefore, cross-objections having no force. 13. Hence, the cross-objections are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent of liability of Insurance Company. It is held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. Only the owner and driver are liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The Insurance Company will be entitled to get back the amount, if any deposited by the Company.