Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. - (1.) The Insurance company has come up in appeal against the judgment and award dated 15.12.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge, Pratapgarh.
(2.) The record and proceedings was summoned and are properly scrutinized by the Court. I have perused the evidence more particularly of the owner namely DW-1 and also of DW-2. At the outset, the Insurance company has felt aggrieved by the judgment whereby they have been directed to indemnify the owner of the vehicle though the driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle which he was driving. It is submitted that the judgment and award dated 15.12.2006 passed by the court below is not only erroneous but is misconceived based on the misreading of the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment, according to counsel for the appellant, is perverse as it is based on presumption and not on the evidence which was led before it.
(3.) Learned Counsel has emphasized the provision of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, mainly that no person can drive the motor vehicle in public place unless he holds an effective valid driving licence, issued by the competent licencing authority. A further submission is that the Tribunal ignored the fact that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident did not have a valid and effective licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident as the same is supported by Form 54 and the evidence of DW-2, who is a Clerk in Road Transport Organization.;