is settled law that onus to prove that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence lies upon the insurance company. No doubt, the onus can be shifted to the driver in case the insurance company produced convincing evidence but in the present case, the reliance has been placed on the testimony of RW-2 M.N.Bose, Assistant Secretary, office of RTO, Hyderabad. This witness has stated that no licence in favour of Sukhwinder Singh bearing No.S/7212/83/HYD has been issued. The basis of the statement is document Mark R-1 and R-2. In the cross-examination this witness has stated that original record has been destroyed being more than 15 years old. So, the statement of this witness is not based upon any authenticated record. Documents Mark R-1 and R-2 have not been exhibited by the Tribunal and on re-thinking no ground for exhibiting these documents is made out in the absence of original record. RW-2 has not stated about the renewal of the driving licence in favour of Sukhwinder Singh at the relevant time. No doubt, in case the original licence is proved to be fake, subsequent renewal of the same does not make out a valid document but on re-appreciating of the evidence, the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the original driving licence in favour of Sukhwinder Singh is fake. Mere fact that it bears the date 24.4.1983 does not make it a forged document.
