IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.210 of 2002 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. through its local Branch Manager, Lal Bazar, Bettiah, P.O. & P.S.-Bettiah, District-West Champaran. ----------Appellant Versus 1. BHARTHARI SAH, s/o Late Saral Sah, resident of vill.-Sabeya (Deoraj) P.S.-Ram Nagar Dis. W. Champaran. 2. Phulpati Devi, D/o Saral Sah, wife of Muni Sah, resident of vill.Banchahari, P.S.-Bagaha, Distt.W. Champaran. 3. Dhulpati Devi, D/o Late Saral Sah, wife of Sheonath Sah, resident of vill.Dainmarwa P.S. Ramnagar, Distt.W. Champaran. 4. Smt. Renu Rao w/o Surajdeo Rao resident of vill. Ratwan, P.O.Patilar P.S. Chautarwa, Distt. W. Champaran. 5. Bhola Yadav, S/o Heera Yadav resident of vill.Ratwan, P.O. Patilar, P.S. Chautarwa, Distt. W. Champaran. -----------Respondents 13. 26.04.2010. Heard the learned counsel, Sri Ram Chandra Lal Das on behalf of the appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. Heard the learned counsel Sri Akhileshwar Kumar Srivastava on behalf of the claimant respondent No.1, 2 & 3. This Misc. Appeal has been filed by the National Insurance Company Ltd, against the judgment dated 17.01.2002 and award dated 13.09.2002 passed by the Claim Tribunal, Bettiah in Claim Case No. 13 of 1996. It appears that on 06.02.1996 while Rajkali Devi was coming from Ramnagar Bazar a tractor being registration No. B.R.E.-7990 with trailer no.BR-22-8006 which was being driven rashly, negligently knocked down Rajkali Devi causing severe injuries as a result of which , she died at the spot. The claimants being the heirs of the deceased filed the claim Case claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Insurance Company appeared and filed a contesting written statement 2 contending interalia that the vehicle in question with trailer was not insured with National Insurance Company and at the time of accident the driver had no valid license and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay. So far quantum is concerned, the Insurance Company did not raise any objection. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the owner died on 18.02.1996 and therefore, the owner did not appear in the Court below. In such circumstances, the National Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. Accordingly, the learned counsel, the tractor was not insured with the Insurance Company. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that all these objections were raised by the Insurance Company in the Court below and the learned Court below has considered all these objections at paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment and came to the categorical finding that tractor was insured with the National Insurance Company. The learned counsel further submitted that the accident took place on 06.02.1996 whereas the owner of the tractor died on 18.02.1996, therefore, on the date of accident, the owner was very much alive and the insurance of the tractor was from 29th December, 1995 to 28th December, 1996 and, therefore, the accident took place while the Insurance was in force. From perusal of the impugned judgment at paragraph 9, it appears that the learned Court below has considered that the claimants have filed Exhibit ‘D’ to prove the fact that the tractor and trailer were insured with the National Insurance Company from 3 29.12.1995 to 28.12.1996. The said policy was issued in the name of owner Suryadeo Rao. The said Suryadeo Rao, i.e., owner of the tractor died on 18.02.1996. The death certificate has been produced which has been marked exhibit ‘B’. To overcome defence of the Insurance Company that the driver had no valid driving licence, the claimants have filed the driving licence in the name of Bhola Yadav. The learned Court below has also considered the said driving licence and came to the conclusion that it was a valid driving licence for driving the vehicle in question. In view of the above fact that the claimants have produced the valid driving licnece of the driver and the policy showing that the tractor in question with trailer was insured with the appellant at the time of accident and the fact that the owner died just after 12 days of the accident. I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. So far quantum of compensation is concerned, no objection has been raised. In the result, I find no merit in this Misc. Appeal and accordingly, it is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sanjeev/- (Mungeshwar Sahoo,J.)