JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal arises out of the award and judgment dated 17.07.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the Tribunal) in file No. 553/Claim, titled Ramesh and another vs Jagdish Singh and others by virtue of which a compensation of Rs. 4,77,000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization has been granted to the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

2. The only ground on the basis of which the present appeal has been filed is that the driver of the offending vehicle respondent No. 4 herein was not having a valid license as upon verification of the renewal of the driving license No. 274/R/201 dated 11.01.2001 from the Licensing Authority Jammu, it was found that the renewal No. 3836/J with effect from 18.06.2005 to 17.06.2008 stands renewed in the name of some other persons having driving license No. 44613/J.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of the present appeal are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed the claim petition for grant of compensation on account of death of their son, who died in a road traffic accident on 03.12.2007 that was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. JK02 2977.

4. The appellant filed the response to the claim petition and on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned Tribunal:

“1. Whether the accident occurred on 3.12.2007 near Nagrota by the rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle No. JK-2-2977 being driven in the hands of erring driver in which deceased Akash Mahajan sustained fatal injuries? OPP

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

3. Whether driver of offending vehicle at the time of accident was not holding valid and effective driving license and plied the vehicle in violation of insurance policy? OPR-3 Relief.”

5. The claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2, besides examining respondent No. 1, also examined PW Rajesh Malhotra in support of their claim. The respondents did not lead any evidence before the learned Tribunal as a result of which the issue No. 3 was decided against the appellant and in favour of the claimants/respondents. The learned Tribunal after hearing the contesting parties passed the award impugned.

6. Mr. D. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. respondent No. 4 was not having a valid license as such, the appellant cannot be saddled with any liability.

7. Mr. Ankesh Chandel, learned counsel for the claimants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the appellant has not led any evidence before the learned Tribunal and as such, the present appeal is misconceived.

8. Heard and perused the record.

9. From the record it is evident that though a specific issue No. 3 was framed with regard to the validity and effectiveness of the driving license of the driver but the appellant did not lead any evidence before the learned Tribunal, as such, appellant could not prove that the driver was not having a valid license and now only the issue that has been raised by the appellant is that the renewal was not valid.

10. It needs to be noted that merely relying upon a certificate that the renewal in the record of Licensing Authority stands in the name of some other persons is not sufficient enough to prove that the renewal is not valid, particularly in view of the fact that the appellant did not lead any evidence before the learned Tribunal with regard to the said fact. The appellant could have summoned the witness from the Licensing Authority in the event the appellant was serious to prove the issue No. 3. The contention of the appellant that there was no valid renewal of the license is akin to a situation where the license of the driver is found to be fake and not mere absence of renewal.

11. Re