IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.71 of 2010 1. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SHANTI MARKET NORTH OF GANDHI MAIDAN GAYA AT P.O- GAYA, DISTT-GAYA, REPRESENTED THROUGH SHRI ANJANI KUMAR WORKING AS A.O. AND DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY OF NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, SONE BHAWAN, P.S- SACHIWALAYA, DISTT- PATNA 2. BRANCH MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. SANCTUM, G.B. ROAD GAYA, REPRESENTED THROUGH SHRI ANJANI KUMAR WORKING AS A.O AND DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY OF NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT 4TH FLOOR, SONE BHAWAN, P.S- SACHIWALAYA, DISTT- PATNA. Versus 1. SURENDRA PASWAN S/O LATE JAGADISH PASWAN R/O VILL- KUNJESNAR, P.O-RANIGANJ, IMAMGANJ, DISTT- GAYA 2. KUPARI DEVI W/O LATE JAGADISH PASWAN R/O VILL- KUNJESNAR, P.O-RANIGANJ, IMAMGANJ, DISTT- GAYA. 3. KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH S/O BANSIDHAR SINGH AMARPUR KOTHI R/O MOH- ANDAR RAMNA, P.S CIVIL LINES, GAYA, DISTT- GAYA OWNER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING IS REG. NO. BR-2/5857. 4. RAJU RANJAN KUMAR SINGH S/O SAMBHU SARAN SINGH R/O VILL-PARARIYA, P.S IMAM GANJ, DISTT- GAYA, DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE BEARING ITS REG. NO. BR-2/5857 ----------- 05. 16.12.2010 The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 17.08.2009 and 04.09.2009 respectively passed in Claim Case No. 65 of 2008 and 52 of 2004 by Additional District Judge cum M.V. Act, Gaya by which he has allowed compensation to the Respondents No. 1 and 2. The claimants claimed compensation for the death of their father and wife respectively. The counsel for the appellant submits that two witnesses who were examined on behalf of the claimants in the present case had stated during investigation in the substantive criminal case that the deceased was traveling on the roof and, therefore, it seemed the deceased had died on account of his contributory negligence and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to compensate the 2 claimants. However, he is unable to satisfy this Court as to how the statement recorded during investigation of the substantive criminal case can be read in evidence or be admissible in the present proceedings. Therefore, this contention is rejected. The next contention of the appellant is that the driver did not have valid license and a presumption should be drawn against him as per the decision reported in PLJR 2002 Vol (3) Page 166 wherein it was held that the Insurance Company could not be fastened with the responsibility if the driver did not have a valid license. On this score also the contention has to be rejected because I find that this issue was not even framed before the Court below and, therefore the decision does not apply in the present case. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed. The amount of Rs. 25,000/- deposited before this Court shall be handed over to the claimant immediately and the Court below is also directed to disburse the compensation amount within a period of three months after deducting this amount from the final compensatory amount. Vikash/- (Anjana Prakash, J.)