Amitava Lala, J. - (1.) -By agreement of the parties the appeal is heard on contest on informal papers.
(2.) THIS appeal is made by the insurance company against an award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mathura dated 7.8.2006 challenging involvement of the tempo in the accident and validity of driving licence of the driver. The fact remains that the deceased on 19.1.2005 had gone from Police Line to Holigate, Mathura to purchase goods. While he was coming back at about 9.30 p.m. of the fateful day, a tempo bearing No. U.P.-85-M-9048 rashly and negligently driven hit him in front of Roti Godam, which caused death. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company has submitted that in the F.I.R., there was no mention of tempo No. U.P.-85-M-9048. Therefore it cannot be said that the accident was caused by tempo No. U.P.-85-M-9048. On the other hand, the driver and the owner have admitted that the accident was caused by the tempo bearing No. U.P.-85-M-9048.
(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted that the driver had forged licence for the period of 22.8.2003 to 21.8.2006. In further, the claimants themselves produced the driving licence. But we find from the impugned judgment that the insurance company had produced Mr. Makhan Singh, senior clerk, Assistant Regional Transport Office, Mathura as witness, who on the basis of original register certified that the driving licence of the driver Mahesh Chandra Sharma was valid for the period between 31.12.2003 and 30.12.2006. He further deposed that he is not aware whether paper No. 24G/4 is valid or not because the concerned register is not with him. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the driver had valid licence, at the relevant point of time.;