SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS UKHC010006832013 AO/277/2013 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd --Appellant Versus Km. Sania and Ors --Respondents Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. T.A. Khan, Sr. Advocate, assisted by Mr. Aditya Kumar Arya, Advocate for the appellant. 2. Mr. Rajendra Arya, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the respondents. 3. The present appeal from order has been filed by the Appellant/Insurance Company against the judgment and order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun in M.A.C.P. No. 118 of 2010. 4. The main ground of challenge taken by the Appellant/Insurance Company in this appeal is that the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal did not consider the fact that the driver of the vehicle, who was involved in the accident, was not having a valid driving license to drive the heavy goods vehicle. Despite this fact, the entire liability has been fastened upon the appellant/Insurance Company. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of this Court to the registration certificate of the vehicle, in which, the gross weight of the vehicle is 9000 Kgs. On this basis, it is submitted that the vehicle would be heavy goods vehicle having gross weight of 7500 Kgs. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the driver was having a valid driving license issued by the competent Regional Transport Officer of motorcycle plus LMV. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. As such, after hearing the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that since the learned Tribunal framed a issue as to whether the driver was driving a vehicle on the basis of valid driving license and while deciding this issue, learned Tribunal has directed that the Insurance is liable to pay the compensation and the Insurance Company was granted liberty to recover it from the owner and driver of the vehicle. 9. As such, the Tribunal concerned in the opinion of this Court have rightly came to the conclusion that the Insurance is liable to pay the compensation and the Insurance Company was granted liberty to recover it from the owner and driver of the vehicle. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment and order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Vikasnagar, Dehradun in M.A.C.P. No. 118 of 2010, and, as such, no new ground has been raised in the appeal, therefore, the present appeal from order is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 10. Further, the statutory amount deposited in the Registry of this Court shall be transmitted to the concerned Tribunal for payment to the appellant/Insurance Company. (Alok Mahra J.) 18.08.2026 Ujjwal