1 had been produced as its witness by the insurance companypany itself and he categorically stated that he had a driving licence at the relevant time issued by the Transport Authority at Rajpur Road in 1977.
The High Court has taken the view that it had number been established that respondent No.
1 and 2, namely, the driver and owner of the motor cycle as also against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., respondent No.
The appellant has challenged the judgment of the High Court in the present appeal on the ground that the finding of the Tribunal that respondent No.
The appellant filed a claim for companypensation on account of injuries received by him in an accident which took place on 30th November, 1977.
The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.
On that date, the appellant was going on his scooter which met with an accident with a motor cycle which was being driven by respondent No.
1 and was owned by respondent No.
1 had a driving licence at the tune of the accident and companysequently the insurance companypany companyld number be held liable.
Aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the insurance companypany preferred an appeal before the High Court which was allowed and the award as against the insurance companypany has been set aside.
1 had a driving licence at the relevant time companyld number, in law, on the facts of the instant case, be reversed by the High Court.
The appeal is taken up for final hearing with the companysent of learned Counsel for the parties.
Special leave granted.
Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
30,000/ as companypensation to the appellant against respondent Nos.
3, with whom according to the appellant the motor cycle stood insured at the time of the accident.
