1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Civil Application No.7502 of 2008 IN First Appeal St. No. 14055 of 2008 [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Onkarlal W. Lichade & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.M. Quazi, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. I.N. Chaudhari, Adv., for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. P.A. Gode, Adv., for respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 15th October, 2009. Heard. Accepting the reasons leading to the delay caused in filing of appeal, delay of 118 days occurred therein is condoned. No costs. Judge |Hedau| 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. First Appeal St. No. 14055 of 2008 [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Onkarlal W. Lichade & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A.M. Quazi, Adv., for the appellant. Mr. I.N. Chaudhari, Adv., for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. P.A. Gode, Adv., for respondent No.2. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 15th October, 2009. 1. Sole ground relied upon by the appellant is that the Driving License to drive the motor vehicle  subject-matter - was not valid on the date of accident. Reliance is placed on adjudication of this fact by this Court in Writ Petition No. 4527 of 2006. 2. Heard. 3. Admittedly, Writ Petition No. 4527 of 2006 arose out of No-fault-Liability, which was decided by the Tribunal in summary hearing. Moreover, the amount payable under Section 140 is due to be adjusted in the Award, if any, made 3 on merits under Section 166 of the Act. 4. The question as to whether the Driving License was valid is discussed and dealt with by the Tribunal in Paragraph No.7 of its judgment under appeal which was rendered while deciding main claim. The relevant discussion reads as follows:- 7. ........................... As at that time applicant has not produced the driving license of N.A. No.2, this liability of making said amount was to be saddled on N.A. No.1 owner. However, applicant during course of proceeding filed original license and certificate from R.T.O. Authority at Ex-50 thereby showing that at the relevant time, NA No.2 driver of the tractor and trolley was holding valid driving license and as such according to me, insurance company is liable to make payment of compensation amount. ..... 5. It is not shown that above quoted fact- finding by the Tribunal is contrary to record. 6. Learned Adv. wanted to rely on the copy of license held by the driver of the offending vehicle. He has tendered it for perusal. 7. It is seen that the license was issued on 29th January, 2002, and bears number MH 35/309/2002. An additional endorsement for LMV Transport was added on 20 th February, 2003. It 4 is obvious that the driver was possessing a license to drive Light Motor Vehicle  tractor (non-transport) on the date of accident. 8. Therefore, it cannot be said that on the date of accident, the driver was not having a license and hence terms of policy were violated. 9. Entire foundation of objection to the claim is baseless. 10. Therefore, appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. Judge |Hedau|