JUDGMENT H.P. Sandesh, J. - This appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 06.02.2010 passed in M.V.C.No.1214/2008 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Bengaluru (SCCH-7) ('the Tribunal' for short) challenging the liability fastened on the Insurance Company. 2. The parties are referred to as per their original ranking before the Tribunal in order to avoid the confusion and for the convenience of the Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that, on 26.11.2007 at about 8:00 p.m, when the deceased was about to climb the Tractor, at that time, the driver of the Tractor suddenly moved the Tractor with high speed in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, he fell down and sustained fatal injuries. The injured was succumbed to the injuries on 10.12.2007. Hence, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming compensation by wife and children. 4. In pursuance of the claim petition, notices were issued against respondent Nos.1 and 2. Respondent No.1-owner, was placed ex-parte. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company, appeared though its Counsel and filed the written statement contending that the policy was in force in respect of the Tractor and the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. Respondent No.2 also denied that the deceased-Lagume Gowda, was died on account of the accident and the driver was not having a valid driving license at the time of the accident. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 5. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim, they have examined the first claimant as PW.1 and also examined one witness as PW.2 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P16. On the other hand, respondents have examined a witness as RW.1 and got marked the documents as Exs.R1 to R3. 6. The Tribunal, after considering both oral and documentary evidence and on appreciation of the material available on record, allowed the claim petition in part granting compensation of Rs.4,46,500/- with 6% interest per annum from the date of petition till realization and also directed respondent Nos.1 and 2, are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation amount. Hence, the present appeal before this Court. 7. Hence, the present appeal before this Court. 7. The main contention of the appellant-Insurance Company in this appeal is that, the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the claim petition against the Insurance Company in view of the specific prohibition mentioned in Regulation 28 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989 ('Rules' for short). The other contention is that the Tractor is not a vehicle to carry any person other than the driver. The deceased-Lagume Gowda, was an employee under the Insured and the Tractor is not a Transport vehicle. Hence, no liability on the part of the Insurance Company to indemnify the Insured and the employee being carried in the vehicle, which is not a Transport vehicle. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company also would submit that the vehicle involved in the accident is Tractor-Trailer and the driver was not having a driving license. 9. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following two judgments: (i) in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) AIR SC 1531 . (ii) in the case of Yashodhara B. Shetty v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and Others, (2007) ILR(Kar) 4567 . The learned Counsel relying upon this Judgment would submit that, absence of evidence to discharge the burden of proof of the insured-Obligation on the part of the owner to take adequate care to see that the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle. Failure on the part of the appellant/insured to discharge his initial burden of establishing that he had engaged a licenced driver. Further it is held that, in the absence of evidence to discharge the burden of proof of the appellant/insured, it cannot but be said that the MACT was fully justified in fastening the liability on the appellant/owner and absolving the insurance company of its liability to pay the compensation. 10. Referring both the judgments, the learned counsel vehemently contends that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants would submit that based on Ex.R3, the seating capacity mentioned in the policy is two in number and also the premium was collected in respect of cleaner and coolie. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants would submit that based on Ex.R3, the seating capacity mentioned in the policy is two in number and also the premium was collected in respect of cleaner and coolie. When such being the case, the Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability and there is a contractual liability against the Insurance Company. Hence, he prays this Court to dismiss the appeal. 12. The learned counsel also would submit that the insured-owner was placed ex-parte and when the insured was placed ex-parte, the respondent-Insurance Company ought to have examined the Investigating Officer as well as the concerned official that he was not having a driving licence and the burden is not discharged. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly ordered to pay the compensation by Insurance Company. 13. Having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4/claimants and on perusal of the material available on record, the points that arise for consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company and it requires an interference of this Court? (ii) What order? Point No.(i): 14. Having heard the respective counsel and also on perusal of the records, it is specifically contended in the claim petition that the claimant was about to climb the Tractor, at that time, the driver suddenly moved the Tractor, as a result, he fell down and sustained the injuries. He was hale, healthy and working as Coolie earning Rs.3,300/- per month. Due to the untimely death, the family of the deceased was under deep mental shock and suffered monetary loss. 15. In pursuance of the claim petition, the Insurance Company filed the written statement admitting the policy issued in respect of the Tractor and the liability is limited to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is also the contention that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and there was a breach of terms and conditions of the policy. The claimants in order to substantiate the same, one witness was examined as PW.1, who is claimant No.1 and reiterated the averments of the claim petition and she was subjected to cross-examination. The claimants in order to substantiate the same, one witness was examined as PW.1, who is claimant No.1 and reiterated the averments of the claim petition and she was subjected to cross-examination. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that she is not a witness to the accident and somebody informed the same over the phone. It is elicited that her husband went to coolie work of the owner of the offending vehicle-Tractor and he was returning in the Tractor after doing coolie work. It is elicited that she does not know who has lodged the complaint. The complainant-Chennakeshava is the brother of her husband. It is further elicited that her husband was doing coolie work with the owner of the offending tractor. The claimant No.1 also examined one witness-PW2 claiming to be the eye witness to the accident. It is elicited in his evidence that he saw two persons were attending nature call and thereafter out of them, one person was about to climb the trailer, the driver of the tractor suddenly drove the tractor/trailer recklessly. As a result, he fell down and the wheels of the trailer ran over him and due to that he sustained grievous injuries. 16. In the cross-examination, he admits that he was not traveling in a tractor at that time and he was proceeding towards his house after completing his coolie work at a distance of half kilometer from the place of accident. The Insurance company examined one witness as RW1, who is the legal Manager of the insurance company and in his affidavit evidence he has reiterated issuance of policy in respect of the tractor and no policy was issued in respect of trailer and further reiterated that the driver of the tractor was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and further reiterates that the deceased was traveling in the trailer and no policy was issued in respect of the trailer. In the cross-examination, he admits that he is not a signatory to the written statement and further admits that Lagume Gowda died in the alleged accident. Further, he admits that vehicle bearing No.KA-53-T-2917 is involved in the accident. In the cross-examination, he admits that he is not a signatory to the written statement and further admits that Lagume Gowda died in the alleged accident. Further, he admits that vehicle bearing No.KA-53-T-2917 is involved in the accident. Further, he admits that on the basis of the contents of the charge sheet they have taken defence that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding driving licence and also admits that he has not produced any investigation report to the effect that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a driving licence. He further admits that except Exs.R1 to 3 he has not produced any other documents in order to show that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a driving licence. 17. Having perused the oral and documentary evidence, RW1 categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the deceased died on account of the accident. There is no dispute with regard to the accident. The fact that he was an employee of the owner of the tractor is also not in dispute. The only dispute is that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence and also under Regulation 28 of the Rules of the Road Regulations, 1989, no person can be carried in the tractor and hence the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 18. Having perused the material available on record, it is rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimants that Ex.R3-policy issued by the insurance company categorically mentioned the capacity as two in number and also collected the premium in respect of the coolie. There is a contractual liability in respect of the driver as well as the coolie and the schedule is clear that an amount of Rs.50/- is collected in respect of the coolie/cleaner. When the insurance company has admitted the policy which is marked as Ex.R3 and when the premium was collected in respect of coolie now it cannot contend that the company is not liable to pay the compensation. When there is a contractual obligation on the part of the insurance company to indemnify the insured in respect of the coolie, the said contention cannot be accepted. The other contention is that the Regulation 28 of the Rules applicable also cannot be accepted for the reason that there is an Express Contract between the insured and insurer. When there is a contractual obligation on the part of the insurance company to indemnify the insured in respect of the coolie, the said contention cannot be accepted. The other contention is that the Regulation 28 of the Rules applicable also cannot be accepted for the reason that there is an Express Contract between the insured and insurer. The other contention of the insurance company is that the driver of the tractor was not having a valid and effective driving licence. 19. In support of his contention, he relied upon the Yashodhara B. Shetty' s case referred supra and in the said case, the insured has approached this Court and in the said appeal this Court held that the insured / owner has not discharged his obligation in producing the document of driving licence. In the case on hand, the insured did not appear and contest the matter. No doubt, the respondents have relied upon the documents Exs.R1 and R2 for having issued notice against the insured and acknowledgment for having served notice on the insured. The Insurance company also has taken the defence that there was no valid and effective driving licence. RW1 has categorically admitted in his cross-examination that the said defence was taken only for the reason that the police have filed charge sheet against the driver of the tractor and the trailer. He further admits that except Exs.R1 to R3, he has not produced any other documents to prove that the driver was not holding the driving licence. The insurance company though took the defence of not having driving licence did not choose to examine the investigating officer and also summoned any officers from the Department with regard to whether the driver was having driving licence or not and also summoned the insured before the Tribunal to substantiate the contention of the insurance company from taking the defence that he was not having driving licence and mere relying on the charge sheet cannot be a ground to exonerate the liability on the insurance company. No doubt, the police have filed a charge sheet against the driver of the tractor and relied upon the documents-Exs.R1 to R3, the same has to be substantiated by the insurance company and the witness, who was examined as RW1 categorically says that he has relied upon only the charge sheet and based on that they took up the defence that there is no driving licence and the burden of the insurance company that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence has not been discharged. When such being the case, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the insurance company has not discharged the burden to prove the defence which has been taken before the Tribunal has not been discharged and mere pleading is not enough and the same has to be established as held in Swaran Singh' s case. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in fastening the liability on the insurance company. The decision relied by the insurance company in Yashodhara B. Shetty' s case is not applicable to the facts of the case. Hence, I answer point no.1 as negative. 20. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following order: i) The appeal is dismissed. ii) The amount in deposit is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal. iii) The Registry is directed to send the records to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith. In view of dismissal of this appeal, Misc.Cvl.No.13753/2010 for Stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of.