(1.) Insurance Company is assailing the judgment and award dated 15.11.2002 and 28.11.2002 respectively, passed by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal-cum-5th Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur in Claim Case No. 261 of 1999. By virtue of the said award liability for payment of compensation to the deceased or the claimant has been fixed upon the Insurance Company on a total wrong application of law, as is the stand of the counsel for the appellant.
(2.) Effort to serve notice on behalf of OPs did not succeed through all other means, which compelled the Court to direct the appellant to go for paper publication which was also done. However, as of today when the appeal is taken up there is none to represent any of the OPs, even though a power was filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 through a counsel.
(3.) The factual aspect is not in dispute. The limited question, which has been raised by the counsel for the appellant is whether the finding given in paragraph 12 of the award and the reasoning given therein is in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court on such issue. Counsel for the appellant has taken this Court through the finding which has emerged in paragraph 12, which does indicate that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving license on the date of the accident, in the sense that the driving license no. 4419 / 95 / G purportedly issued by the DTO, Guahati was not found to be genuine and valid but despite the above accepted position and finding recorded by the Tribunal it has gone on the principle laid down by a judgment of a Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in 1999 AC 1077 (AP) as well as 2001 ACJ 542.