JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, Judge These three appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, since they arise out of the same accident. 2. The undisputed facts are that accident of bus No. HP-54-1565 took place on 19-9-2000 while the bus was going from Fatehpur to Badukhar. Jaswinder Singh alias Dimple was driver of the bus. The main defence of the Insurance Company was that the driver did not have valid driving licence to drive a heavy transport vehicle. 3. FAO No. 420 of 2004 arises out of the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACT petition No. 24-G/II/2001, wherein the main ground raised is that the evidence of the Insurance Company was wrongly closed and no reasonable opportunity was given to the Insurance Company to lead its evidence. It is also alleged that the Insurance Company should not suffer for the negligence on the part of his counsel. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that it is not necessary to go into this question. 4. FAO No. 89/2005 arises out of the same accident. In this case, undisputably the Insurance Company was given opportunity to lead evidence. In this case, the owner of the vehicle appeared into the witness box and submitted that before he had handed over the bus to the driver Jaswinder alias Dimple, he had himself conducted the driving test and thereafter he had verified all the documents including the driving licence and according to him he had handed over the documents along with driving licence to the insurance company along with his claim for payment of compensation in respect of damage suffered by his bus and there is no cross-examination on this aspect of the matter. In addition thereto Ex. R-1 is a copy of the award passed in another case arising out of the same accident in which the learned MACT has observed that the driving licence was produced but no infirmity could be pointed out by the counsel for the Insurance Company. 5. Since all these cases arise out of the same accident, the only question is whether the driver had valid driving licence or not. 5. Since all these cases arise out of the same accident, the only question is whether the driver had valid driving licence or not. In one of the cases, the driving licence was produced but in two other cases though the driving licence was not produced, the owner stepped into the witness box and stated that he had verified the documents and driving licence and handed over the same to the Insurance Company. Therefore it is difficult to accept the submission of the Insurance Company that the driver did not have a valid driving licence or that it could not verify the validity of the same because of the reason that the details of the driving licence were available with the Insurance Company. 6. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeals. The same are rejected accordingly. No costs.