S.S.Sudhalkar, J. - (1.) This appeal is filed by the insurance company against whom the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had passed the award to pay compensation to the claimants-respondents.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant insurance company argued that the insurance company could not have been made liable and directing it to pay the amount because the respondent driver is not proved to have been driving with a valid driving licence. He has further argued that the owner and the driver were called upon to produce the driving licence which they have not produced and hence the owner and driver only should have been made liable to pay the amount.
(3.) From the certified copy of the orders produced by the learned counsel for the appellant it can be found that two orders were passed in this connection, i.e., order dated 22.1.2001 and 12.2.2001. The text of order dated 22.1.2001 is as under: "No RW is present. Learned counsel for respondent insurance company moved an application under section 170, Motor Vehicles Act. For reply to this application and for production of driving licence of driver to come up on 12.2.2001." The text of the order dated 12.2.2001 is as below: "Documents are not filed. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 requested for one more date. In the interest of justice case is adjourned to 22.2.2001 for RWs. The application under section 170, Motor Vehicles Act is allowed subject to all just exceptions." Hence it is clear that it cannot be said that the Tribunal had directed the respondents to produce the driving licence.;