The possession of a valid licence by the driver at the time of the accident was not a valid ground for interference in the lower court's judgment.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against award passed in Claim Case No. 16 of 1994 dated 30. 4. 1996 by First Member, M. A. C. T. , Ujjain, who is pleased to award the amount of Rs. 50,000 for an accidental death of the daughter of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is stated that on 30. 8. 1993 when the respondent No. 3 was driving truck No. MOU 3729, which was owned by respondent No. 4, knocked down Rukhsana, daughter of respondent nos. 1 and 2. She was crushed under the truck and died. Upon the assessment of the evidence and the arguments the lower court granted award of Rs. 50,000.

( 2 ) MR. Saraf has only one argument and, i. e. , the respondent No. 3 did not possess any valid licence renewed on the date of accident.

( 3 ) THIS argument is said for rejection since the term of contract is also that a person who holds or had held licence and was not disqualified could be a good driver. In such circumstances there is no reason to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The licence was thereafter renewed, therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicle was driven by any incompetent person. In such circumstances on the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant there cannot be any interference in the lower court's judgment. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.

.