KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. - (1.) By way of this appeal, the appellant, who is insured, has challenged the award whereby the entire liability has been fastened on the insured and the Insurance company has been exonerated.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has mislead itself and exonerated the Insurance company on the ground that each and every person in the vehicle was not separately insured. I have not adverted to the facts as the appeal has to be decided on bare question of law and bereft of any facts, which are not necessary in the present case.
(3.) The record, which is appended to this memo of appeal also has the copy of the policy. It is an admitted position of the facts that it emerges from the policy that it was a private car package policy. The learned Tribunal has mislead the policy and has mistakenly come to the conclusion that the policy in question was an act only policy whereas the policy is a package policy. This finding of facts is erroneous and requires to be quashed. The finding of fact that driver did not have proper driving licence is self contradictory as in paragraph 11 the learned Judge shows that from 10.8.2003 till 9.8.2006 the licence holder driver had valid driving licence. No evidence was led by the insurance company, despite this the Tribunal held in favour of opponent No. 2 i.e. Insurance Company which is erroneous finding.;