JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award dated 17th November, 2003 rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jhunjhunu, whereby the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs. 3,27,200/- in favour of the claimants-respondents and against the non-claimants. 2. Background facts, in a nut shell, are thus: "That on 18th September, 2000 at about 4.30-5.00 A.M., Kesar Devi and 4-5 other women were going to a hillock for collecting fodder. When they reached near a small water pool, a jeep bearing registration No.RRT 5444, being driven by its driver negligently and at a fast speed, suddenly appeared from the direction of village Kho and hit Smt. Kesar Devi. When she was being taken to hospital, she succumbed to injuries on the way." 3. The claimants of the deceased Kesar Devi filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. The notices were issued to the non claimants No.1 to 3. The non claimants No. 1 and 2, who were the driver and owner of the offending vehicle, did not appear before the learned Tribunal despite the fact that service of notice was effected on them, as a result of which the ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them on 08.02.2001. 4. The learned Tribunal having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties decreed an amount of Rs. 3,27,200/- in favour of claimants and against the non claimants, as indicated here-in-above. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the alleged accident did not take place on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle and rather it was caused due to the negligence of Smt. Kesar Devi. He further canvassed that Shri Mahaveer Prasad Bohra, the then Branch Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Jhunjhunu appeared as N.A.W. - 1 before the Tribunal and deposed that the driver of the Jeep was not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, hence the Insurance Company could not have been held liable to make the compensation. 7. E Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the : claimants-respondents defended the impugned judgment and award and stated the same to be just and apt. 8. 7. E Contra, the learned counsel appearing for the : claimants-respondents defended the impugned judgment and award and stated the same to be just and apt. 8. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Swarn Singh & Ors, reported in 2004(7) ACJ 1 , it has been held by their Lordships of Hon'ble Apex Court that : mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver for driving, are not themselves defences available to the Insurance Company and insurance company cannot absolve from its liability to pay the quantum of compensation. 9. In view of the ratio decided by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Swam Singh & Ors (supra), the Seamed Tribunal is found to have rightly fastened the liability on the insurance company to pay the quantum of compensation to the claimants. 10. The impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is found have suffered from no infirmity. The finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and warrants no intervention. 11. For these-reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant - National Insurance Company Limited fails and the same being bereft of merits, deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 12. No order as to costs. *******