JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is against the judgment dated 1st July, 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereby and whereunder, appeal filed by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited challenging the award dated 26.04.2006 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge Khushi Nagar in MAC No. 98/2002, has been dismissed.

3. Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the appeal are as under:-

On 23.07.2001 at about 6:00 p.m. one Shukurullah was going from Kasya Courts to his village Shivpur on a bicycle. A two wheeler scooter, bearing registration No. UP 57 - 5901, being driven by one Ram Surat in a rash and negligent manner hit Shukurullah near Sapha P.S. Kasya and as a result thereof, Shurkurullah sustained grievous injuries and died. The ill-fated scooter was owned by Vakilrao respondent No. 8 herein. The legal representatives of deceased Shukurullah lodged a Claim Petition No. 98/2002 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khushi Nagar/Additional District Judge and they claimed compensation for the death of their sole bread earner.

4. By its award dated 26.04.2006, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter by Ram Surat. It awarded a sum of Rs. 3,01,500/- as compensation with interest at 9% per annum in favour of the claimants and against the second respondent, owner of the scooter and appellant - insurance company. The appellant insurance company was directed to pay the amount of compensation. The appellant insurance company filed an appeal before the High Court. Before the High Court it was contended that as the driver Ram Surat was holding licence for driving Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV) only, therefore, he had no valid licence to drive a two wheeler scooter which is totally a different class of vehicle in terms of Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as the MV Act]. It was contended that in view of the breach of the provisions of the MV Act, the appellant insurance company cannot be held liable to satisfy the award in terms of Section 149(2) of the MV Act.

5. The High Court without noticing the contention of the appellant insurance company passed short and unreasoned order, which reads as under:-

"Heard Sri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.

Having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that this appeal has got no force and is dismissed summarily. However, the statutory deposits so made before this Court be remitted to the Claims Tribunal within three weeks."

6. Hence, the insurance company has filed this appeal.

7. Despite service of notice, respondent No. 2 owner of the vehicle has chosen not to put in appearance and contest the appeal.

8. Shri M.K. Dua, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company contended that the High Court grossly erred in dismissing the statutory appeal of the insurance company without considering the legal question involved in the present case. He contended that the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation for the default of the driver of the scooter who was not holding a valid licence and the liability to indemnify claimants is the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.

9. Shri Girijesh Kumar Mall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants, contended that the claimants should not be made to suffer for the inter se dispute between the appellant insurance company and respondent No. 8 owner of the vehicle in regard to their liability to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. According to the learned counsel, the amount of compensation as directed by the Tribunal has to be released to the claimants and the appellant insurance company can realise the said amount from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law.

10. In order