By the Court.—Heard Shri R.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Rajendra Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the claimant respondents.

2. In brief, the deceased Pradeep Kumar Singh alias Dipu Singh while going from Unnao to Bahurajmau alongwith one Manoj Singh suffered with an accident on 25.11.2000 at about 10.30 a.m. with Jeep No. U.P. 35-A/7510. It has been stated that the driver of the jeep was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently and in consequence thereof, the accident occurred. In the said accident, the pillion rider of the motor-cycle suffered with grievous injuries and later on Pradeep Kumar Singh alias Deepu Singh succumbed to the injuries. The deceased was aged about 20 years and was a student of B.Com. The monthly income has been stated to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month. A First Information Report was lodged and the dependents of the deceased approached the tribunal for payment of compensation for an amount of Rs. 7,55,000/-.

3. The tribunal has framed four issues, out of which issue No. 1 relates to the accident alleged to have occurred on 25.11.2000 at about 10.30 with jeep. Issue No. 2 relates to insurance of the jeep and issue No. 3 relates to driving licence. The tribunal recorded a finding that the accident was occurred because of rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. U.P. 35-A/7510. The prosecution has produced oral witnesses, i.e. PW 1 Jaidev Singh, claimant petitioner and P.W.2 Rajveer Singh. Shri Rahul Bajpai, owner of the vehicle himself appeared as D.W. 1 whereas on behalf of the appellant National Insurance Company, one Sanjay Trivedi appeared as D.W. 2. The factum of accident was duly proved by the witnesses. It has also been proved that the jeep was insured by the appellant insurance company and after the accident, Sanjay Bajpai had moved appropriate application for payment of insured amount to the appellant insurance company.

4. However, the argument advanced by the appellant’s counsel relates to the driving licence. Mr. R.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the jeep was driven by one Kallu Bajpai who did not possess driving licence. In the Criminal Case, a charge-sheet was filed against Kallu Bajpai. On the other hand, a defence was taken by the owner of the vehicle that the jeep was driven by Anuj Kumar Bajpai who was having driving licence. The tribunal observed that it was the duty of the owner of the vehicle to inform the name of person who was driving the vehicle. Before the tribunal, attention of the Court was invited to the copy of the application dated 19.12.2000, filed by the owner of the vehicle as paper No. 45-Ga/14. While moving application for release of the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle has indicated the name of the driver as Anuj Kumar Bajpai. Anuj Kumar Bajpai was possessing driving licence and copy of form 54 issued by the licensing authority was placed on record as paper No. 45-Ga/5. It has been observed by the tribunal that after accepting the version of the owner of the vehicle with regard to the fact that Anuj Kumar Bajpai was driving the jeep, the appellant insurance company has submitted a reply for payment of compensation in terms of the insurance policy.

5. So far as the defence taken by the appellant that Kallu Bajpai was driving the vehicle on the basis of the charge-sheet filed in the Criminal Case, is concerned, it appears that on the request of the appellant, non-bailable warrant was issued to Kallu Bajpai but he did not turn up. The statement of D.W. 2 Sanjai Trivedi who appeared on behalf of the appellant insurance company also does not establish that Kallu Bajpai was driving the vehicle. In case, Kallu Bajpai had not appeared, then it was incumbent on the appellant insurance company to take other recourse in accordance with law to procure the attendance of Kallu Bajpai but the same has not been done.

6. Once the owner of the vehicle has taken a plea that the driver of the vehicle was Anuj Kumar Baj