ORDER

1. This AHO has been filed against the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 21st July, 1999 on the ground that the learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the case to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal') to examine and determine the issue as to whether the insurance company-Appellant would be held responsible for making the payment of compensation in a case where the person driving the vehicle which met the accident and had been insured with the Appellant had no valid driving licence. Learned Single Judge rejected the application filed by the Appellant under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC in view of the fact that such an issue ought to have been raised by the Appellant before the Tribunal. The appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act was maintainable only on the substantial question of law.

We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. S.S. Rao, who has contended that such an issue was agitated before the Tribunal, however, the Tribunal took note of the fact that the driver's father who appeared before the Tribunal was not in a position to reply on these pleadings and the driver could not appear as he had died.

Admittedl