[5] The Court finds that except stating in the reply filed by the appellant – insurance company that unless and until it is proved that the driver of the vehicle – scooter held legal and valid licence to drive the said vehicle, the appellant – insurance company is not legally liable for the claim, the appellant – insurance company neither raised any contention before the Tribunal to the effect that respondent no.2 had no driving licence on the date of the accident nor applied for any direction to respondent no.2 to produce the licence before the Tribunal nor even applied for witness summons to call officer from RTO as witness to prove that on the date of accident, respondent no.2 had no licence. Thus, the appellant – insurance company has failed to discharge its onus to prove that respondent no.2 had no licence to drive the vehicle involved in the accident on the date of accident. In above view of the matter, the Court finds that the appellant – insurance company could not be said to have made out the case to interfere with the impugned judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal. The appeal is, therefore, required to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. The office to send back Record and Proceedings to the concerned Tribunal
