IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Appeal From Order No. 291 of 2007 Jeet Singh and another ...Appellants Versus The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & others ...Respondents Sri Gopal Krishna, Advocate for appellants Sri V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, Advocate for respondent no. 1 Dated: 05-05-2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal, under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has been preferred by the appellants i.e. owners of Tractor No. U.A.06/2880, against the judgment and award dated 25.02.2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge/Third Fast Track Court, Udham Singh Nagar, in M.A.C.C. No. 197 of 2003, Smt. Sukhraj Kaur and others versus Jeet Singh and others. The claimants-Smt. Sukhraj Kaur filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal for grant of compensation in lieu of death of deceased-Harjeet Singh in a motor vehicle accident alleging therein on 28.5.2003 at 10 p.m. deceased-Harjeet Kaur was returning to his home accident and when he reached in front of Shiva Dharamkanta on Doraha Bazpur Road, Tractor No. U.A.06/2880 being driven by its driver-Suchcha Singh rashly and negligently dashed the deceased from the rear side, due to which Harjeet Singh died at the spot. It has also been alleged that deceased was 35 years of age at the time of his death and used to earn a sum of Rs.10,000/- from his electric shop. The claimants claimed compensation against the owner, the insurer and the driver of tractor jointly or severally. The opposite parties contested the claim before the Tribunal by filing their written statements and denied their liability to pay the compensation. The learned Tribunal on the basis of pleadings of the parties framed relevant issues in the claim petition. Parties led oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their case. The learned Tribunal after having considered the entire material evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties decreed the claim petition for a sum of Rs.3,27,000/- along with interest of 6% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the date of actual payment, vide impugned judgment and award dated 25.02.2005. The Tribunal at the same time directed that though the amount of compensation shall be paid to the claimants by opposite party no. 4-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., but the insurance company shall have the recoverable rights to recover the amount of compensation from the owners of vehicle in question (opposite parties no. 1 and 2). Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned judgment and award, the appellants i.e. owners of tractor in question, have preferred the present appeal before this Court. Heard Sri Gopal Krishna, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri V.K. Kohli, senior Advocate assisted by Sri I.P. Kohli, learned counsel for respondent no. 1-Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and perused the record. Learned counsel for the appellants has confined his argument towards this aspect of the matter that the Tribunal has wrongly shifted the burden on the shoulder of the owners of vehicle for payment of amount of compensation. Learned counsel for respondent no. 1- insurance company has made the rival contention and supported the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The short controversy in this case is as to whether at the time of accident driver of tractor in question was having valid and effective driving licence or not. The impugned judgment and award passed by the court below shows that issue no. 2 was framed in order to decide this point which reads as follows: “Whether at the time of accident driver of tractor in question no. U.A.06/2880 was having valid and effective driving licence? If yes, its effect? I have gone through the impugned judgment and award thoroughly. The insurance company has taken a plea in its written statement that on the date of accident driver of tractor no. U.A.06/2880 was not having valid and effective driving licence. The insurance company in support of its contention produced Sri Mohan Singh Dangwal as DW-1, who stated in paragraph 7 of this deposition that driving licence of alleged driver-Succha Singh was not valid on the date of accident and in this regard Form No. 54 issued by R.T.O. Haldwani has been filed on record. Perusal of this document i.e. Form No. 54 shows that driving licence of driver-Suchcha Singh was valid w.e.f. 15.1.1993 to 30.4.2004, whereas accident in this case took place on 28.5.2003. Besides, opposite party nos. 1 and 3 filed copy of driving licence of Suchcha Singh which also shows that same was valid w.e.f. 15.1.93 to 30.4.2000. The opposite party nos. 1 and 3 also pleaded in their written statements that driving licence of driver- Suchcha Singh was renewed upto 21.8.2006, but no evidence is on record in this regard. The Tribunal recorded a finding that on the date of accident driver of tractor was not having valid and effective driving licence. I do not find any illegality in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal and same deserves to be confirmed. Now, it is to be seen as to which is liable to pay the amount of compensation, in case, if the driver of tractor was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. The claimants placed reliance upon a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of 2004(1) A.W.C.768 (S.C.) National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Savitri Devi and others, in which it has been held that where driver of vehicle involved in accident was not having valid and effective driving licence, the insurance company shall be liable to pay the compensation, although the insurance company may recover the amount of compensation from the owner of vehicle in question. The Tribunal after having considered the entire evidence adduced before it recorded a finding that in this case also though the driver of vehicle involved in the accident was not having valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident, even then the insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above cited case, although the insurance company may recover the amount of compensation from the owners of vehicle in question. I do not find any illegality in the said finding recorded by the Tribunal and same deserves to be confirmed. Rest of the findings recorded by the Tribunal with regard to factum of accident and quantum of compensation also appears to be justified and needs no interference by this Court. For the reasons stated above, the appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment and award dated 25.02.2005 passed by Tribunal, is hereby confirmed. The statutory amount deposited by the appellants with this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) SP