1. Heard finally.

2. The only point that arises for determination in this appeal is whether learned Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (henceforth 'the Tribunal') was justified in passing the award of pay and recover against the appellant insurer after recording a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a driving licence.

3. It is not in dispute in this appeal that claimant - respondent No. 1, a pedestrian, who was knocked down by the motor cycle No. CG 11 - B 6166 driven by respondent No. 2 is a third party, whose risk was statutorily covered by the insurer under the policy of insurance.

4. Shyamlal Kurmi, respondent No. 3, the owner of the offending vehicle motor cycle No. CG 11 - B 6166 and Ghanshyam Kaushik, respondent No. 2, the driver did not contest the application filed by the claimant - respondent No. 1, under S.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') for compensation on the ground of permanent disability suffered due to being hit by the motor cycle driven by Ghanshyam Kaushik.

5. The Claims Tribunal recorded a specific finding in para 14 that Ghanshyam Kaushik, respondent No. 2, driver of the offending vehicle did