IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.183 of 2010 NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUNGER BRANCH HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE GAURI NIWAS, MOHALLA MATHURIYA, NEAR GANDHI MAIDAN, BIHARSARIF, NALANDA …… O.P. NO.2 … APPELLANT, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE “R” BLOCK, PATNA-1 Versus 1. KAPIL RAM S/O LATE NATHO RAM 2. TUNTUN KUMAR S/O KAPIL RAM AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS 3. RANI KUMARI D/O KAPIL RAM AGED ABOUT 8 YEARS 4. GAUTAM KUMAR S/O KAPIL RAM AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS 5. CHHOTU KUMAR S/O KAPIL RAM AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS, 2 TO 5 ARE MINOR CHILDREN OF RESPONDENT NO.1 (FATHER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN), ALL RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MURGICHAK, P.O. BARBIGHA, P.S. SARE, DISTRICT NALANDA, A/P C/O FAAKO RAM, S/O LATE RAKSHA SINGH, VILLAGE BILARI, P.O. BILARI, P.S. KATRISARAI, DISTRICT NALANDA …. CLAIMANTS- RESPONDENTS 6. RAVISH DEVI W/O SRI BHAGIRATH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHERPUR, P.O. & P.S. BARBIGHA, DISTRICT SHEIKHPURA, OWNER OF TRACTOR NO. BR-52-2151 ….. (O.P. NO.1) - RESPONDENT ----------- 4. 6.12.2010 The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 9.9.2009 and 16.9.2009 respectively passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge I-cum-Accident Claims Tribunal, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Claim case No.129 of 2006 in which the appellant has been directed to pay Rs.1,27,000/- within a month, failing which the interest of 6% will be payable per annum from the date of the order. The short facts of the case is that on 27.3.2006 while the deceased was returning to her village a tractor bearing No.BR-52-2151 dashed against her and due to which she became injured and died. When an accident claim case was filed claiming 2 compensation for the death of Bimla Devi, an objection was raised on behalf of the Insurance Company that the driver, who was driving the tractor, had no valid licence. In support of it they brought on record Exhibits A and B showing that the licence bearing No.1825/96 was not issued in the name of S. Chaudhary. The court below considered this aspect of the matter extensively and rightly concluded that just because the D.T.O., Gopalganj communicated that the licence was not issued in the name of S. Chaudhary it did not necessarily mean that it was not issued in the name of Surendra Chaudhary, who happened to be the charge sheeted driver. The court below also held against the Insurance Company that they did not produce the letter, by which they have called for such application from the D.T.O., Gopalganj. On going through the records of the case, I find that the communication from the D.T.O., Gopalganj in fact is very sketchy and does not conclusively establish that the licence was not issued in the name of one Surendra Chaudhary, who was the driver of the tractor in question. In view of such, I find no merit in this appeal. The appeal is dismissed. Narendra/ ( Anjana Prakash, J. )