K. Kannan, J.@mdashAll the four cases arise out of the same accident and address the same issue relating to defence of the insurance company
that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. In evidence, it produced a report of the licensing authority that the driver did not have a valid
driving licence. The driver himself had given a copy of licence and marked as R-4. The Tribunal reasoned that a mere production of a report will
not be sufficient to discredit the copy of the licence produced and when no evidence had been let in with reference to the report by a person
connected with the original register or a person from the office of the transport officer, the insurer could not be said to have discharged the burden
of proof.
2. It is also contended that petition u/s 163-A was not maintainable, for the insured vehicle was hit against a stationary vehicle and negligence could
not be attributed to the insured''s vehicle. The proof of negligence is irrelevant in a claim u/s 163-A and therefore, I am afraid I cannot accept the
contention made by the learned Counsel appearing for the insurer.
3. I find myself in full agreement with the reasoning of the Tribunal and I dismiss the appeal filed by the insurer in all the cases affirming the liability
cast on it.