SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.

1. This is insurer's appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act') questioning the legality and validity of the award dated 30-11-2009 passed by 7th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (henceforth 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 44/2008, by which claimants'/respondents No. 1 & 5 claim petition has partly been allowed fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the appellant/insurance Company to indemnify the award.

2. The facts, as projected and necessary for adjudication of this appeal, are as under :

2.1 In a road traffic accident occurred on 9-4-2013 at about 9 p.m., respondent No. 5/driver Kailash Kumar Markam by rashly and negligently driving the Tankar (offending vehicle) bearing registration No. CG-17-H-0732, owned by respondent No. 6-Manoj Kumar Madharia and insured by appellant/Insurance Company dashed Mr. A. Simachalam (deceased) by which he suffered grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. First Information Report was lodged against the respondent No. 5/driver for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of the IPC and, thereafter claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act was filed by the legal representatives of deceased A. Simahachalan claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 53,00,000/- jointly and severally from the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle pleading inter alia that deceased A. Simhachalan was aged about 35 years at the time of accident; was working as Sub-Engineer in the Fero Allianz and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month.

2.2 Respondents No. 5 & 6/Owner & driver choose not to appear before the Claims Tribunal, whereas the appellant/insurance Company filed its written statement before the Claims Tribunal stating inter alia that respondent No. 5/driver did not have the necessary endorsement as required under Rule 9(4) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rule, 1989 as such there is a breach of the terms of the policy conditions and, therefore, the appellant/insurance Company be exonerated from its liability to indemnify the amount under award.

2.3 The Tribunal by its impugned award partly granted the application finding inter alia, that :

(i) Claimants are entitled for a total sum of Rs. 10,18,700/- along with interest @ 6 per cent, per annum, if award is satisfied within a period of two months, and in default along with interest @ 9 per cent. per annum in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 5/claimants for the death of A. Sinhachalam due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by its driver.

(ii) The appellant/insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation as it could not establish violation of policy conditions.

3. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that Claims Tribunal has committed a legal error in directing the Insurance Company to indemnify the amount under award as there is overwhelming evidence available on record to hold that driver did not have valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending goods carriage carrying dangerous/hazardous goods and, therefore, the part of award by which the liability has been saddled upon the appellant/insurance Company deserves to the set aside.

4. Per contra, Shri Amiakant Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3/claimants supported the award impugned and submitted in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company, which does not call for any interference.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submission made therein including award impugned.

6. The question that falls for consideration whether the driver did have valid and effective driving licence to drive offending vehicle at the time of accident is moot question to be answered by this Court.

7. The offending vehicle in question is Tanker, which is duly in