1. - This appeal has been filed by the United India Insurance Co. Ltd granting of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the claimant by the award dated 15.5.2010 passed by Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge No.1 Bayana (Bharatpur) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition. It may be mentioned that by the order of this court dated July 29, 2011, eighteen appeals (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 754 of 2011 and other similar appeals) filed by the appellant United India Insurance Co. against the common award dated 15.5.2010 were rejected.

2. The facts have been set out in the impugned judgment and hence I am not repeating the same here except wherever necessary.

3. On 2.12.1998 tanker No. GJ 12 U 6938 carrying highly inflammable substance was going from Jaipur to Agra on National Highway No.11 and when it reached near village Aamoli, its driver drove the vehicle rashly and negligently, turned it on kacha road in such a manner that it fell in the ditch and the inflammable substance caught fire and many passers by sustained injuries and some of them died. The tanker was being driven by respondent non- claimant No.2 and was owned by respondent non-claimant No.1 and was insured with the appellant insurance company. The heirs of 15 deceased persons and 4 injured persons ( i.e. 19 in all ) filed separate claim petitions under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bayana ( Bharatpur) against the non- claimants. The non-claimants l and 2 did not appear despite service and as such were proceeded exparte. The insurance company in their reply to the claim petition stated that neither there was any nexus in between the accident and the injuries/ death caused to the victims nor there was any negligence of the driver and further, the driver was not having a valid driving license. The MACT framed six issues. 21 witnesses were produced from the side of the claimants in the connected file and 4 witnesses in file Bhagwan Singh v. Babulal while one witness was produced from the side of the insurance company. The MACT allowed the application dated 1.11.2002 under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the appellant insurance company and thus it has been stated by the appellant insurance company that they have a right to file appeal on all the grounds available to the owner and the driver of the vehicle.

4. The learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the MACT has committed an illegality in deciding the issue No.3 against the insurance company. An objection was raised by the insurance company in their reply to the claim petitions that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. The driver and the owner of the offending tanker neither appeared before the MACT nor filed any reply to the claim petition and also did not appear in the witness box to contradict the objection taken by the insurance company. The offending vehicle was carrying highly inflammable and hazardous substance at the time of the accident. The driver of the vehicle was not authorised to drive the said vehicle unless there was an endorsement on his driving license authorising him to drive such vehicle. The driving license of the driver was submitted by the claimants and the same showed that there was no endorsement authorising him to drive the offending vehicle which was carrying highly inflammable and dangerous substance at the time of the accident. It was proved on record that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective license to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The MACT did not evaluate and consider the evidence on record properly and legally and thus illegally decided issue No.3 against the insurance company.The learned counsel for the insurance company has argued that the insurance company may be given a right to recover the amount of com