JUDGMENT (ORAL) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited is in appeal against the judgment and award dated 10.03.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishtwar (hereinafter „the Tribunal for short) in case file No.70/Claim entitled Sumeya Banoo v. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and others, whereby compensation of Rs. 69,000/- along with interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded to respondent No. 1 (hereinafter „the claimant ). 2. The award impugned has been assailed solely on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle, at the time of accident, was not holding a valid and effective driving license, as such, insurer was not liable to indemnify the insured and pay compensation to the claimants. 3. Briefly put, the facts leading to the filing of this appeal are that on 03.08.2011, claimant while travelling in vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No.JK06-1134 from Kishtwar to Palmar met with an accident near Palmar due to negligent and careless driving of respondent No.3. The claimant received severe injuries on her body including fracture of 4th & 5th left clavicle, as result whereof, she suffered permanent disablement. The claimant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation on account of the injuries received and disablement suffered in the accident. The claim was contested by the appellant as well as respondent No.3. However, respondent No.2 did not contest the claim and was, accordingly, proceeded ex-parte. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the Tribunal:- “1. Whether, petitioner Sumaya Banoo D/o Abdul Wahid R/o Palmar, on 03.08.2011 while travelling from Kishtwar to Palmar by a Tata Sumo bearing registration No.JK06/1134, belonging to respondent No.2, being driven by its driver (respondent No.3) rashly, carelessly and negligently, met with an accident out of use of said vehicle near Palmar, suffered fracture/serious injuries and became permanently ? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled, and from whom ? OPP 3. Whether the offending vehicle was being plied by its driver in violation of terms and conditions of the Policy of Insurance and route permit? OPR-1 4. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver not holding a valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was overloaded at the relevant time, if so, what is its effect on the claim petition? OPR-1 5. Relief …………..? OPR-1 4. Whether the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver not holding a valid and effective driving license and the vehicle was overloaded at the relevant time, if so, what is its effect on the claim petition? OPR-1 5. Relief …………..? O.P. Parties.’ In order to discharge the burden of proof, claimant besides entering herself in the witness box has examined two witnesses, namely, Shabir Ahmed and Dr. Paviter Singh. However, appellant did not examine any witness to discharge the onus of proof of issue Nos.3 & 4. The Tribunal after evaluating the oral as well as documentary evidence, decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the claimant. Since the appellant has not produced any evidence to prove issue Nos. 3 & 4, the same have been decided in favour of the claimant and against the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, in that, respondent No.3 i.e. driver of the offending vehicle, at the time of accident, was not holding a valid and affective driving license, therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemnify insured-respondent No.2 (owner of the offending vehicle). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the claimant, supporting the award of the Tribunal submits that mere assertion without any cogent evidence that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid an affective driving license at the time of accident is not sufficient enough to absolve the appellant from its liability to indemnify respondent No.2, the owner of the offending vehicle. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, I am of the view that the plea of the appellant that since the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, it is absolved of its liability to indemnify the insured is without any substance. 7. The Tribunal has rightly held the appellant to indemnify respondent No.2 and pay compensation to the claimant. A specific issue regarding validity of the license of respondent No.3 to drive the vehicle at the time of accident was framed by the Tribunal but the appellant failed to discharge its burden to prove the issue by choosing not to lead any evidence. A specific issue regarding validity of the license of respondent No.3 to drive the vehicle at the time of accident was framed by the Tribunal but the appellant failed to discharge its burden to prove the issue by choosing not to lead any evidence. When a specific issue regarding the plea of the appellant that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No.3, at the time of accident, was not holding a valid and effective driving license was framed by the Tribunal and the appellant was asked to prove the same. It was for the appellant to discharge its burden and prove the said issue. Once, the appellant failed to establish its defense before the Tribunal, the Tribunal was right in holding that the appellant shall indemnify the insured i.e. owner of the offending vehicle. 8. It is well settled that mere a bald assertion by the insurer that at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license to drive the offending vehicle is not sufficient enough to absolve the insurance company of its liability to indemnify the insured. That apart, the claimant has been awarded a meager amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.69,000/-, which, by no stretch of reasoning, can be said to be excessive. In this view of the matter, it is not possible for this Court to take a view different from the one taken by the Tribunal. 9. In view of the above, this appeal is found to be without any merit, hence dismissed. The award of the tribunal is upheld. 10. Registry shall release the amount of compensation, if deposited, in favour of the claimant in terms of the award of the Tribunal after proper identification and verification.