IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.309 of 2002 M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Versus MOST.BHAWANI DEVI & ORS ----------- 15. 19.8.2008 The prayer made in I.A.No. 269/2004 in respect of condonation of delay in filing this appeal, on being pressed, is, hereby, allowed. The appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal for setting aside the order dated 8th April, 2002 passed in MACT Case no. 58/98/56/2000 by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Begusarai, whereby and whereunder he has directed the Insurance Company, which was opposite party no.3 there, to pay amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,20,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of order and future interest at the rate of 8.5% till payment. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The fact, in brief, is that the home-guard Ashok Kr. Yadav in course of performing his duties, who was on patrolling duty in the night of 7.12.1996, had been dashed against his person by a truck bearing registration no. MIF/2070 driven rashly and negligently by the driver, as a result of which he ultimately succumbed to injuries. He was 25 years old, who left behind minor sons and daughter as his legal heirs. He was earning Rs.45/- per day. Learned Tribunal after framing several issues ultimately decided the issues in favour of the claimant-respondents and passed the impugned order. The only point, which has been raised here on behalf of the appellant Insurance Company, is that the driver of the erring vehicle Krishna Kant Rawat was not holding a valid driving licence. But such issues have been decided in 2 paragraph 6 of the impugned order wherein it has been held that driver Krishna Kant Rawat bearing driving licence no. 18163/92 was opined to be holding fake licence by surveyor of the appellant-Company. Report of the surveyor was proved in course of hearing of the claim case by formal witness, who was an Assistant of the office of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company did not bother to examine the surveyor himself so as to test his veracity as to the source of his information or knowledge on the basis of which he submitted report regarding holding of a fake driving licence by the concerned driver. Learned Tribunal has examined the defence threadbare and ultimately came to the conclusion that appellant Insurance Company has failed to establish this charge. So far the vehicle concerned being insured at the relevant time by the appellant Insurance Company is concerned, there is no dispute and no such point has been raised here. Merely on the ground that driver did not hold any valid driving licence, the impugned order cannot be set aside. Having heard learned counsel of both sides and gone through the impugned order and award, I do not find any reasonable ground for interference in the impugned order. The order stands confirmed and the appeal, in turn, stands dismissed. The amount, so deposited here by the appellant, should be sent back to the lower court to be utilized by the appellant. Spal/ (Subash Chandra Jha,J.)