Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal has been filed challenging the award dated 27.11.2015 in M.A.C.P. No. 123 of 2013 Smt. Vidhya Devi and 4 others v. Vikas Jain and another, passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge)/Special Judge, S.C./S.T.(P.A.) Act, Badaun, awarding a sum of Rs. 3,37,000/- to the claimants-respondents on account of death of Sri Omkar (husband of claimant-respondent No. 1 and father of claimants-respondents No. 2 to 5) in an accident on 9.2.2013 caused by truck bearing registration No. H.R. 55/8341.

3. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the deceased was the driver of the offending truck. While parking the truck he came in contact with 11000 voltage electric line which resulted in his death. He was having no driving licence and as such no liability of the appellant insurer could be fixed. Thus, the Tribunal committed a manifest error of law in fixing the liability of the appellant insurance company for payment of compensation to the claimants respondents. In support of his submission, he relied upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sujata Arora and others, 2013(3) TAC 29 (SC).

4. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant.

5. Perusal of the impugned award shows that while deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2, the Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that the claimants respondents have been successful in establishing that in the night at about 10 P.M. of 9.2.2013 when the offending truck was being parked near Gyani Dhaba, adjacent to Chaudhary Petrol Pump, it came in contact with hanging 11000 voltage electric line which caused death of the deceased Omkar who was not at fault. This finding of fact has not been challenged before this Court. That apart, this is a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal.

6. While deciding issue Nos. 3 and 4, the Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that respondent No. 1 (widow of the deceased driver) had stated in her examination in chief that her husband Omkar was doing the job of driving vehicle from the very beginning and he obtained the driving licence from Kota, Bundi, Rajasthan but she did not know the driving licence number and she searched the driving licence in her room but could not find it. It has also been recorded that the father of the deceased was also a driver. The Tribunal also recorded a finding of fact that despite disclosure of these facts, the appellant insurance company made no effort to verify the existence of driving licence of the deceased from the Transport authorities at Kota, Bundi, Rajasthan. However, since the driving licence could not be produced and as such, the Tribunal assumed that there was no driving licence.

7. While deciding issue No. 5, the Tribunal considered the facts of the case and evidences on record so as to fix the liability for payment of compensation. While deciding this issue the Tribunal recorded undisputed findings of fact that the deceased died because of coming into contact of the truck with the hanging electric wire and there was no negligence on the part of the deceased driver. The Insurance company has not verified the fact of issuance of driving licence of the deceased by Transport authorities of Kota, Bundi, (Rajasthan). On these facts and in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004(1) TAC 321(SC), the Tribunal fixed the liability of the appellant insurance company to pay compensation to the claimants-respondents.

8. It is not the case of the appellant insurance company that either the owner of the offending truck had knowingly and wilfully permitted a driver not having a driving licence or that the insurer made any effort to verify the fact of issuance of driving licence of the deceased by the Transport authorities of Kota, Bundi (