Judgment on Board : Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 05.07.2022 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No.63/2020, whereby the claim application of the claimants has been allowed and an amount of compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- has been awarded along- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application for the death of owner-cum-driver of the offending motor-cycle. 2. Deceased Ganpat Sidar was the owner of the offending motorcycle bearing No.CG 06 GN 8411 and while driving the said vehicle, he met with an accident and died. The said vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company from 11.03.2019 to 10.03.2024. On the death of Ganpat Sidar, the claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Claims Tribunal claiming compensation, which was granted by the learned Claims Tribunal by holding that insurance policy (Ex.P-8) covers the risk of owner-cum-driver to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/- and it could not be proved by the insurance company that the deceased did not have a valid & effective driving license to drive the motorcycle, therefore, the liability has been fastened upon the insurance company. 3. Ms. Harneet Kaur, learned counsel for the appellant would firstly submit that the insurance policy did not cover the risk of owner, therefore, the claim application is not maintainable and secondly, in order to get the amount insured, the Tribunal ultimately found that the owner did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle; therefore, the impugned award be set aside and the appeal be allowed. 4. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the claimants would support the impugned award and submits that the insurance policy covers the risk of driver-cum-owner to the extent of Rs.15,00,000/- and the insurance company has failed to prove that the deceased did not have a valid and effective driving licence; therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability upon the insurance company. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 6. The Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Ashalata Bhowmik & Others, (2018) 9 SCC 801 has held that contractual liability is limited and held in para 9 as under :- “9. Therefore, the High Court was not justified in directing the appellant insurer to pay the compensation determined by the Tribunal. Since the indemnification extended to personal accident of the deceased is limited to Rs.2,00,000/- under the contract of insurance, the respondents are entitled for the said amount towards compensation. Hence the appellant is directed to deposit the said sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with interest @9% per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of deposit with the Tribunal within a period of four weeks from today.” The principles of law laid down in Ashalata Bhowmik (supra) has further been followed in the matter of Ramkhiladi & Another v. United India Insurance Company & Another, (2020) 2 SCC 550 . 7. The insurance policy (Ex.P-8) proved by PW-1 also covers the personal accident of owner-cum-driver and premium of Rs.330/- has been paid and the actual liability is Rs.15,00,000/-, but any person including insured must have valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. In this behalf, though the insurance company has taken a plea and also examined one witness Gourav Jeete, but it could not be established, as no investigation report has been filed and except self-serving statement, nothing has been brought on record to hold that the driver of the motor-cycle did not have a valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this appeal, the same deserves to be and accordingly dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.