ORDER 1. This AHO has been filed against the Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 21st July, 1999 on the ground that the learned Single Judge ought to have remanded the case to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter called the 'Tribunal') to examine and determine the issue as to whether the insurance company-Appellant would be held responsible for making the payment of compensation in a case where the person driving the vehicle which met the accident and had been insured with the Appellant had no valid driving licence. Learned Single Judge rejected the application filed by the Appellant under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC in view of the fact that such an issue ought to have been raised by the Appellant before the Tribunal. The appeal u/s 30 of the Workmen's Compensation Act was maintainable only on the substantial question of law. We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. S.S. Rao, who has contended that such an issue was agitated before the Tribunal, however, the Tribunal took note of the fact that the driver's father who appeared before the Tribunal was not in a position to reply on these pleadings and the driver could not appear as he had died. Admittedly the driver of the vehicle also died in the accident and father of the deceased driver was not in a position to give any specific reply to such a disputed question of fact. The present Appellant did not insist before the Tribunal to frame the issue at that particular point and failed to lead evidence in this regard. As to whether the driver was having a valid licence is a pure question of fact and not even a question of law, what too talk of the substantial question of law. Thus the appeal has rightly been rejected by the learned Single Judge. In the facts and circumstances of the case, application under Order 41, Rule 27 CPC could not be allowed, nor the retrial on this issue is permissible. The appeal lacks merit and accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed