HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 3 of 2010 Court No. - 54 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. The case is called out in the revised call. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent to oppose this First Appeal From Order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claim petition filed on behalf of the claimant contained allegations against Roshan Kesarwani, stating therein that while driving Scooter No. UP 63 A 2774, he hit the deceased on 04.09.2005 at about 12:45 PM. The said person succumbed to his injuries during treatment at Varanasi on 07.09.2005. It is submitted that the claim petition was allowed by the learned Tribunal, which passed an award of Rs.20,40,000/- in favour of the respondent-claimant along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. It is further submitted that Roshan Kesarwani, who was driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, was riding the scooter alone and no one was sitting as a pillion rider. It is an admitted fact that, at the time of the accident, Roshan Kesarwani was holding a learner's driving licence. A person holding a learner's driving licence is not restrained from driving a vehicle; however, a person holding a valid driving licence is required to accompany him as a pillion rider. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant that Roshan Kesarwani was driving the offending vehicle without any person holding a valid driving licence sitting behind him as a pillion rider. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal fastening the entire liability to pay the compensation upon the Insurance Company is liable to be modified, and the right of recovery ought to be granted in favour of the Insurance Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Arun Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Kumar, P.S. Kaushik, Prashant Singh, R.B. Singh, Suresh Chandra Verma The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Thru Dy. Manager .....Appellant(s) Smt. Sitarun Nisha And Others .....Respondent(s) Company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. 6. It is evident from the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the father of Roshan Kesarwani was sitting as a pillion rider on the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The driving licence of Mahesh Prasad, father of Roshan Kesarwani, was also produced before the learned Tribunal, and the same was found to be valid and effective on the date of the accident. 7. In view of the aforesaid finding, the contention raised by the appellant that there was a breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy does not survive. 8. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal is upheld. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. September 9, 2026 Mukesh FAFO No. 3 of 2010 2 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad