WP(C) 1448/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. D Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Dutta, lear ned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company. The petitioner, by the present petition, has challenged the action of the Insura nce Company in repudiating the claim of the petitioner for payment of compensati on for the damages caused to the petitioner’s vehicle in a motor accident occurr ed on 26.2.2006. The claim of the petitioner has been repudiated by the Insuranc e Company on the ground that the driver of the motor vehicle did not have a vali d license. Mr. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petit ioner while expected to exercise reasonable care in verifying the driving licens e of the driver, is not expected to approach the concerned authority to verify t he license produced by the driver, which the petitioner did, the respondent Insu rance Company cannot refuse to pay the compensation for the damages caused to th e vehicle in the accident occurred on 26.2.2006 as the Insurance Company is boun d by the contract of Insurance. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Insurance Company submit s that since the writ petition involves disputed question of fact, the same may not be entertained and the order as prayed for may not be passed as before passi ng any such order the finding of fact, after examination of evidence to be adduc ed by the parties, has to be recorded. Mr. Dutta further submits that under Sect ion 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the ’Act’), the petitioner ca n raise this dispute before the learned Tribunal constituted under the provision of the Act having jurisdiction over the matter. The question as to whether the petitioner had exercised due care at the time of engagement of the driver about having a valid license or not is a question of fa ct which can be ascertained only after adducing evidence by the parties. While t he petitioner is claiming that he exercised due care in examining the license pr oduced by the person who has been engaged as driver, the respondent Insurance Co mpany has taken the stand that the petitioner is not entitled to the amount of c ompensation claimed under the contract of insurance as the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid license. Such disputed question of fact cannot be decided in a writ proceeding more so when a statutory authority is created under the pro vision of the Act to go into such question and to award adequate compensation. That being the position, the relief claimed in the present writ petition cannot be granted at this stage. The petitioner may, however, approach the learned Tribunal having jurisdiction o ver the matter of payment of compensation, if so advised. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost.