( 1 ) FIRST Appeal (No. 14/1999) is directed by the appellant (original respondent no. 2) United India Insurance Company Ltd. , being aggrieved by the award passed by the district Judge, Jalgaon, on 07-09-1998 in motor Accident Claim Petition No. 50/1992, thereby granting compensation total of rs. 2,95,200/- together with interest and, both: the owner and insurer, were jointly and severally made liable to pay the amount of compensation. The respondent No. 1 (original claimant) Smt. Lilabai Marathe is the widow and respondent Nos. 2 to 5 (original claimants nos. 2 to 5) are the children of one Ramesh marathe (deceased), who was serving as education Development Officer at Jalgaon. The Scooter (No. MVD 6455) was owned by respondent Ramesh Chindu Patil, who was friend of deceased Ramesh Marathe. They both on 17-02-1989 were riding on the Scooter, which was owned and driven by respondent no. 1 Ramesh Patil. Deceased Ramesh Marathe was the pillion rider. At about 3 p. m. the alleged accident occurred at 8 kms. away on jalgaon-Shirsoli road while, respondent ramesh Patil had drinen the Scooter rashly and negligently and, when he was negotiating with the curve on the road, the Scooter dashed against a guardstone. Both the riders of the scooter were thrown away from the Scooter. Ramesh Marathe did sustain head injuries and, later on, in Civil Hospital, Jalgaon, he succumbed to the head injuries. Therefore, the respondents (claimants) have filed petition for compensation before the Tribunal.

( 2 ) BOTH the respondents, owner and insurer of the Scooter, by filing their written statements, which are placed at Exhs. 34 and 31, respectively, denied the claim in the petition mainly on the ground that, the Scooter was not driven rashly and negligently. Secondly, the respondents (claimants) failed to establish the exact age and, monthly income of the deceased. The appellant Insurance Company denied their liability to pay the amount of compensation on the ground that, the said vehicle was driven in breach of mandatory provisions of law and, the terms and conditions of the policy.

( 3 ) THE learned Member taken the trial, heard the parties and, accordingly, awarded compensation to the respondents (claimants ). The appellant Insurance Company, feeling aggrieved by the said award, preferred this appeal mainly on the grounds that, firstly, the learned Member did not properly appreciate oral and documentary evidence adduced on record and, therefore, arrived at wrong conclusion. Secondly, the learned Member should have held that, the original respondent no. 1, who is the owner of the vehicle and, who had driven the vehicle, did hold learners driving licence within the meaning of Section 2 (5a) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. Thirdly. the learned Member was wrong in holding that, original respondent No. 1, owned and driver, held valid driving licence. Lastly, the order passed by the learned Member is not only contrary to the principles of law but, against the facts and circumstances brought on record.

( 4 ) MAY it be noted that, the facts mentioned hereinafter are not disputed by the other side or, may safely be taken as proved by the evidence on record: (i) That, the respondents (claimants) nos. 1 to 5 are the legal representatives of ramesh Marathe and, the relationship is not in dispute. (ii) The Scooter (No. MVD 6455) was owned by respondent No. 1 Ramesh Patil. (iii) On 17-02-1989, at about 3 p. m. the said Scooter was driven by respondent No. 1 ramesh Patil and, it met with an accident. (iv) Deceased (pillion rider) Ramesh marathe did sustain head injuries in the accident and, later on, he succumbed to the head injuries, in the hospital, on the same day. (v) During relevant time, respondent ramesh Patil held learners driving licence. (vi) The pillion rider did not hold any learners driving licence or, regular driving licence. Now, let us proceed further with this admitted position.

( 5 ) THERE is ample evidence on record, which will indic