1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.45/2007. (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kusum Sharma & Others) DATE OF JUDGMENT : February 10, 2010 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KAPADIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS _________________________________________ Mr. Sanjeev Johari for the appellant. Mr. B.L. Tiwari/Mr. B.P. Bohra for the respondent(s). BY THE COURT : (Per Hon'ble Mr. Vyas, J.) In this special appeal, appellant National Insurance Company Ltd. is challenging the judgment dated 10.01.2001 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.772/2000, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant against award dated 20.07.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali in Claim Case No.114/1993 was dismissed. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali passed award in the sum of Rs.4,24,054/- in favour of 2 claimant-respondent vide award dated 20.07.2000 after recording issue-wise finding upon appreciation of evidence coming on record. In view of apex Court decisions, reported in AIR 1959 SC 1331 and 1998 ACJ 244, the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 10.01.2001 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant insurance company with categorical observation that none of the grounds of negligence or quantum of award is available to the insurance company to be raised and, therefore, dismissed the appeal summarily. In this special appeal filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, it is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the driver of the erring vehicle was not possessing valid licence for driving a light commercial vehicle. Neither before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal nor before the learned Single Judge specific ground as to the validity of the licence possessed by driver of the erring vehicle was raised, therefore, at this stage, when specific pleading was not pleaded by the appellant, then, it is not proper to interfere in this intra-court appeal. In this view of the matter, we do not find any substantial question of law emerging in this appeal 3 warranting interference. The appeal is, therefore, bereft of any merit. This special appeal is accordingly dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. (A.M. Kapadia) J. Ojha, a.