Absence of driving license cannot be inferred without examining RTO officials or proving lack of license.

On December 15, 2006, the deceased, Vithalbhai Chitharbhai, was riding a motorcycle when he was struck by another motorcycle (No. GJ-4AK-7609) driven in a rash and negligent manner.

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Bhavnagar, awarded the claimants Rs. 8,49,500/- with 9% interest.

The Appellant Insurance Company challenged this award, primarily contending that the rider of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license at the time of the accident and thus the insurer should be exonerated from liability.

1. Whether the Insurance Company proved that the driver of the offending vehicle lacked a valid and effective driving license so as to be exonerated from satisfying the award.

2. Whether an adverse inference ought to be drawn against the rider for non-production of the license despite the service of notice.

In a claim for compensation, the burden lies on the insurance company to prove a breach of policy conditions, such as the lack of a valid driving license, through cogent evidence.

The court considered the principles of "adverse inference" under the Indian Evidence Act, noting it cannot be drawn if there is a reasonable explanation for the non-production of evidence or if the party seeking the inference failed to exhaust necessary investigative steps, such as summoning RTO officials.

The Court found that the Insurance Company failed to meet the requisite burden of proof. Although the Appellant served a notice for the production of the license, it was revealed that the rider had been missing since 2008.

Consequently, the Court reasoned that no adverse inference could be drawn for the failure to produce the license, as it was physically impossible for a missing person to comply.

Crucially, the Court noted that the Insurance Company failed to examine any official from the Regional Transport Office (RTO) to verify the status of the rider's license. In the absence of such evidence or any other cogent proof, the Tribunal’s decision to fasten liability on the insurer was deemed legally sound.

The Court affirmed the Tribunal's judgment and award of Rs. 8,49,500/- with interest, directing any deposited amounts to be transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith. No order as to costs was made.