(1.) EVEN though the appeal is listed for admission, with consent of both the counsel, we have taken up for final disposal.
(2.) APPEAL is by the insurance company seeking to avoid the liability fastened on them by the Tribunal.
(3.) THE case made out by the claimants is that in an accident which occurred on 14.2.2004, one Shankarappa i.e. brother of the claimants who was aged about 40 years died involving an autorickshaw. A claim petition is filed seeking compensation. Apparently, the insurance company has taken up a contention that as on the date of the accident, the driver of the auto rickshaw did not possess valid driving license. We notice that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the driver of the auto rickshaw did not possess a driving license. Indeed the finding is in no uncertain terms. During the course of trail, the second Respondent i.e. insurer has produced the driving license extract issued by the ARTO, Bangalore South which is marked as Ex. R1. It discloses that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a license for the period from 15.4.1987 to 14.4.1990. Apart from this, second Respondent has also examined the ARTO, Bangalore South Taluk as RW2. The history sheet for drivers is produced at Ex. R5. A11 these documents, along with oral evidence clearly discloses that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license as on the date of the accident. Indeed, the Tribunal has proceeded to fasten the liability on the insurer, following the ratio laid down in the judgment of the Apex Court reported in New India Assurance Co., Shimla Vs. Kamla and Others etc. etc., AIR 2001 SC 1419 . Apparently, the said judgment is doubted by another Bench of the Supreme Court in the ease of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvathneni and Another, JT (2009) 12 SC 275 and the matter is referred to a Larger Bench.