1. - This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 17.8.2007 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Labour Court), Sri Ganganagar in M.A.C.T. Case No. 76/2005.

2. The short facts of the case are that the claim petition was filed on 11.1.2004 on the ground that the claimant was going on the motor cycle from Punjab side to Sadulshahar. At 12.30 noon, near canal link channel, respondent no.1 was driving the truck No. RJ 13-G 2285 in rash and negligent manner and hit the motor cycle, as a result of which the claimant has sustained injuries. FIR has been lodged at the concerned police station. Challan was also filed against respondent no.1 and the claimant filed a claim petition for appropriate compensation which was partly allowed by the learned Tribunal and 40% liability has been fastened on the claimant holding that the accident was caused due to contributory negligence of the claimant.

3. The contention of the present appellant is that the learned Tribunal has committed error in holding 40% negligence of the appellant. The learned Tribunal has categorically gave a finding that the accident was caused by the negligence of the driver of the truck and, admittedly, after investigation challan has also been filed against the driver of the truck. The only reason for holding the negligence of the present appellant is that he was not holding a valid licence. No fact has been produced before the learned Tribunal that the claimant was driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently or he has contributed in any way for causing the accident, hence the finding of the learned tribunal is erroneous and liability of 40% which has been fastened on the present appellant should be quashed.

4. Per contra, the contention of the respondents is that there is no fault in the finding and the compensation awarded. It is not in dispute that the vehicle was coming from the opposite direction and they collied face to face. Hence the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the present appellant was also negligent and he has contributed in the accident.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as the record of the learned Tribunal.

6. It is not in dispute that the motor cycle and the truck have collied face to face but specific finding has been arrived at by the learned Tribunal that it was the truck driver who was negligent and positive finding has been recorded in favour of the claimant that he has not hit the truck of respondent no.1. The only reason for holding the present appellant liable is that he was not having a valid driving licence. The contention of the present appellant is that if the person drives a vehicle without the driving licence, he can be put for an offence but for negligence, a specific evidence should be produced to prove it and reliance has been placed on Sudhir Kumar Rana v. Surinder Singh and ors. (2008 CDR 704(SC) wherein it has been held as under:-

"If a person drivers a vehicle without a licence, he commits an offence. The same, by itself, in our opinion, may not lead to a finding of negligence as regards the accident. It has been held by the Court below that it was the driver of the mini truck which was being driven rashly and negligently. It is one thing to say that the appellant was not possessing any licence but no finding of fact has been arrived at that he was driving the two-wheeler rashly and negligently. If he was not driving rashly and negligently which contributed to the accident, we fail to see as to how, only because he was not holding a licence, he would be held to be guilty of contributory negligence."

7. Looking at the above, here in the present case, the only finding of the learned Tribunal is that the claimant was not having a valid licence and that is why he has contributed in the occurrence of the accident but no finding has been recorded by the learned Tribunal that due to rash and negligent