Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47074 Court No. - 7 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 61 of 2012 Appellant :- National Insurance Company Ltd. Thr.Its Asstt.Manager Respondent :- Smt. Maya And 6 Others Counsel for Appellant :- S.C.Gulati Counsel for Respondent :- Shakeel Ahmad Ansari Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard Ms. Pooja Arora, learned counsel for the appellant. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents despite sufficient service of notice. Accordingly, the court proceeds to hear learned counsel for the appellant in absence of the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the respondent no. 5 namely Mool Chandra has expired and this information was received by the appellant as per the office report dated 1.7.2025. It is further stated that the heirs of the respondent no. 5 are already on record as respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6. Hence, the array of the parties may be permitted to be corrected and the word 'dead' may be permitted to be incorporated after the name and full particulars of the respondent no. 5. Having considered the aforesaid submissions, this Court finds that C.M. Application No. IA/2/2025 is formal in nature and there is no legal imediment in allowing the said application. Hence, the application is allowed and the appellant is permitted to carry out necessary amendment in the memo of appeal during course of the day. The instant appeal has been preferred by the National Insurance Company Limited assailing the award dated 5.10.2011 passed in claim petition no. 500 of 2007 whereby the MACT/Special Judge, Anti-corruption, Lucknow in a death case has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,30,500/- along-with 6% interest per annum in favour of the claimant-respondents. The facts in brief is that on 19.10..2007 at 2.20 p.m. the deceased Ram Pratap along-with his son was going from his residence to Gauribajar with his motorcycle bearing registration no. UP32V-8092. On the way, they met with an accident with a dumper truck bearing registration no. UP32 BN-1624. The deceased died on the spot. The son of the deceased is also stated to be injured in the accident. The deceased was doing job in Parcel Section of the railway department. The tribunal while dealing with the claim petition has framed five issues for consideration of this claim. Issue no. 1 is with regard to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the dumper. Issue no. 4 relates to quantum of compensation and issue no. 5 deals with the misjoinder of the necessary parties. Learned counsel for the appellant does not controvert the findings recorded by the tribunal on the issue nos. 1, 4 and 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has approached this Court on ground that the issue nos. 2 and 3 framed by the tribunal has not rightly been dealt by the tribunal. Issue no. 2 is as to whether the dumper driver has the valid driving licence or not whereas the issue no. 3 is that whether the dumper was insured and the said vehicle was being driven as per the condition of the insurance company or not. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once there is a clear finding recorded by the tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle did not posses a valid licence rather it was a case of no licence, hence, in such circumstances, the award should not have been fastened on insurance company rather the award should have been passed against the owner of the vehicle and he ought to satisfy it. It is also urged that from perusal of the findings recorded by the tribunal while dealing with the issue nos. 2 and 3 it recorded that though the vehicle was insured but no driving licence was filed which clearly indicates that the vehicle was not being driven as per the driving policy condition. Accordingly, the finding directing the appellant insurance company to pay the award is bad in the eyes of law. The Court has considered the aforesaid submissions and also perused the material on record. At the outset it may be stated that the sole contention upon which the award has been assailed is lack of driving licence. As far as the quantum and negligence is concerned, the same is not in dispute. Considering the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, this Court finds that even though the licence was not brought on record and it could be treated as a case of no licence the fact remains that the appellant insurance company has been granted the right of recovery after paying the award. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and also noticing the fact that this appeal is pending before this Court since 2012 and the award was passed on 5.10.2011 and the tribunal has already considered the matter and recorded a finding based on cogent evidence, hence this Court does not deem fit to interfere, especially the ground has been taken by the appellant before the Court based on inference drawn from the award but no positive evidence regarding a case of no licence was led. Thus, this Court is not inclined to interference in the matter since substantial justice has been done and the right of recovery is already available with the insurance company which was granted by the tribunal and can be availed. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Any amount deposited before this Court shall be remitted to the tribunal to be released in favour of the respondent-claimant as per the award. Any shortfall shall also be made within 60 days from today with up-to-date interest. Let the record of the tribunal be returned forthwith. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 kanhaiya Digitally signed by :- KANHAIYA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench