ORDER 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 25th June, 2012 passed by learned Principal District Judge-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Judge, Bokaro in T.M.V. Claim Case No. 64 of 2010, whereby learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimants. 2. The case of the claimants was that the deceased Shamim Ansari, who was a mason, while going to his work place on 4.5.2010 at 7.45 a.m., met with an accident with the offending vehicle and sustained multiple injury including head injury which caused his death during his treatment. According to the claimants, the accident took place because of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. The offending vehicle was seized and driver was arrested on the spot. The deceased was admitted to Regional Hospital, Dhori. He was then referred to Muskan Hospital, Chas. After sometime, looking to his serious condition, he was referred to Apollo Hospital, Ranchi where he died on 29.5.2010. The deceased was an expert mason and his daily earning was Rs. 225/- which comes to Rs. 6,000/- as monthly income. The claimants are the widow and minor children of the deceased. 3. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 owner and driver had appeared and contested the claim case. One of the grounds of contest was the denial of accident. The further ground was that the vehicle was insured with National Insurance Company Ltd. at the time of alleged accident and the driver was holding a valid licence at the time of accident. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company had appeared and contested the claim case on the ground that necessary particular of the driver was not furnished and the claim amount is speculative. 5. Both the parties produced the evidences-oral and documentary. 6. Learned Tribunal framed as many as three issues. 7. After due discussions and appraisal of the evidences on record, learned Tribunal decided all the issues in favour of the claimants and held that the deceased died in motor vehicle accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle bearing registration no. JH09F-4282 and that the insurance company is liable to pay total compensation of Rs. 10,26,154/- as medical expenditure incurred in the treatment of the deceased as well as the compensation for fatal injury in that accident. 8. The said judgment and award has been assailed in the appeal mainly on two grounds. JH09F-4282 and that the insurance company is liable to pay total compensation of Rs. 10,26,154/- as medical expenditure incurred in the treatment of the deceased as well as the compensation for fatal injury in that accident. 8. The said judgment and award has been assailed in the appeal mainly on two grounds. Firstly that the driver was not holding valid driving licence and secondly that the amount of compensation is highly excessive and contrary to the established legal principles. 9. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant laid much emphasis on the ground that though the driver was not holding a valid licence, liability of compensation has been fastened on the insurance company contrary to the provisions of law. Learned counsel submitted that the onus was on the owner and the driver to establish that the driver was holding a valid licence but the said onus has not been discharged by them. Learned Tribunal, without taking into consideration the said vital infirmity, has illegally awarded compensation directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount. Learned Tribunal has also applied wrong principle in calculating the amount of compensation deducting 1/4th expenses instead of prescribed deduction of 1/3rd expenses. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants-respondent nos. 1 to 5, on the other hand, contested this appeal. It has been submitted that the owner and driver of the vehicle had filed their written statement specifically stating, inter alia, that the driver was holding valid licence bearing D.L. No. 0932/2005. The National Insurance Company in its written statement had not anywhere stated that the driver was not holding a valid licence. Therefore, there was no contrary material on record to hold that the driver was not holding a valid licence. The said defence was not taken by the Insurance Company before learned Tribunal and that new factual defence cannot be taken and entertained for the first time in appeal. 11. It has been further submitted that learned Tribunal has also considered the point of quantum of compensation and has recorded reasons for deducting 1/4th of the income of the deceased on the basis of the decision of the Apex Court in Sarla Verma case reported in (2009)6 SCC page-121. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award, I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents. 12. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment and award, I find substance in the submission of learned counsel for the respondents. From the record it appears that the appellant-National Insurance Company had filed written statement but had not taken any defence that the driver was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. Whereas the owner and driver-opposite party nos. 2 and 3 had specifically asserted that the driver was holding a valid driving licence. 13. In view of the above, there was no controversy regarding validity of licence before the learned Tribunal and no finding at all was required to be recorded on the issue which was non-existent. The appellant cannot be allowed to take a new factual plea which was not taken before the Tribunal. There is no infirmity or error in the impugned award. The amount of compensation has also been fixed on the basis of due discussions of all the aspects and following the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 14. I, therefore, find no ground made out to interfere with the impugned judgment and award of learned Tribunal. 15. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. I.A. No. 3026 of 2012 In view of the dismissal of the appeal by order dated 14.12.2012, this I.A. stands rejected.