(Sanjay Karol, J.)(Oral) - The present appeal arises out of award dated 2.8.2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirnaur District at Nahan, in MAC Petition No. 90-MAC/2 of 2003, titled as Smt. Jai Manti Devi and others vs. Surender Singh and another.

2.On 20.7.2003, vehicle No. HP-16-1657 met with an accident near Kheri Maryog-Baru Sahib road, Tehsil Nahan, District Sirmaur, H.P. in which Shri Des Raj, owner of the goods and Shri Kamal Raj, driver of the vehicle died. The legal heirs of deceased Shri Des Raj instituted Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 20 lacs.

3.The owner Shri Surender Singh opposed the petition by filing its written statement, inter alia, pleading that the vehicle in question was inured with the United India Insurance Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “Insurance Company”) and the driver, who unfortunately also died in the said accident, was having a valid driving licence.

4.The Insurance Company also opposed the petition, inter alia, alleging that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, which fact was within the knowledge of Insured.

5.Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:-

“1. Whether Shri Des Raj died in the accident of truck bearing registration No. HP-16-1657 which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver and the deceased was travelling in the truck as owner of the goods, if so its effect?OPP

2. If Issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom?OPP

3. Whether the driver of the truck was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and that the vehicle was being driven in contravention of the insurance policy, if so its effect?OPR-2"

6.To prove its case, the claimants examined Smt. Jai Manti Devi (PW-1), Shri Som Dutt (PW-2) and Constable Ranjit Singh (PW-3), Significantly, the respondents in the claim petition did not lead any evidence except for tendering the copy of Insurance Cover note and Insurance Policy (Ext. R-1 and Ext. R-3 respectively) and also photocopy of the registration certificate of the vehicle (Ext. R-2).

7.Appreciating the material on record, the Tribunal decided Issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the claimants and held the claimants entitled to compensation of a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- alongwith interest.

8.However, on Issue No. 3 the Tribunal came to the conclusion that since no driving licence of the driver of the vehicle had been placed on record by its owner, therefore, the Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay and the owner alone was liable to pay the awarded amount of compensation. It is against this finding that the owner has filed the present appeal.

9.No appeal has been filed either by the claimants or by the Insurance Company. During the course of hearing, learned Counsel for the appellant confined his submission only to the issue of liability. No. submission was made with regard to Issues No. 1 and 2 as determined by the Tribunal.

10.I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the award.

11.It is a matter of record that none of the respondents to the claim petition i.e. owner or the Insurance Company led any evidence. The owner in the written statement specifically pleaded that the vehicle was being driven by the deceased Kamal Raj, who was having a valid driving licence. This fact was disputed by the Insurance Company. It is also a matter of record that no evidence was led by the Insurance Company and except for tendering the Insurance Cover Note and the Insurance Policy no steps were taken by the Insurance Company. No notice asking the owner to produce the driving licence was issued nor any material was placed to show that the driver was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Unfo