PRATIMA SRIVASTAVA Vs. DEBI PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr. R. P. Singh, learned counsel for the appellants. Though the list has been revised but none has appeared on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) THIS is a first appeal from order filed against the award dated 24. 5. 1997 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, kanpur in Motor Accident Claim Petition no. 283 of 1996.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has contended that the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 is that the driver was not having a driving licence of light motor vehicle for driving of private vehicle. It is contended that the finding is patently erroneous inasmuch as the driving licence a copy of which was a part of the record of Tribunal and has been filed as annexure along with this appeal indicates that the driving licence of driver Virendra kumar, son of Sunder Lal, who was driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, was issued on 23. 9. 1991, it was made valid for lmv (Transport) w. e. f. 29. 1. 1993 and the aforesaid endorsement was again extended w. e. f. 13. 3. 1996. It is submitted that the licence also bears another endorsement to the effect that it is valid for LMV (Private)and the same is valid from 29. 1. 1996 to 28. 1. 1999 under the order of the licensing authority.