JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Ram Chandra Lal Das, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company. None appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.5.2005/13.7.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-I–cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Begusarai in MACT Case No.35 of 2003, whereby the claim has been allowed with interest. 3. The claim case in question was filed by the husband and the minor children of the deceased. It has been stated in the claim application that the deceased Ram Kali Devi was dashed against by a rashly and negligently driven tanker bearing Registration No.WB-41A-3576 on 23.8.2002 at about 6.30 PM while she was moving along the road and as a consequence thereof she suffered fatal injury and upon being taken to the hospital, she was declared dead. An FIR was registered on the basis of the Fardbeyan of the Chowkidar giving rise to Barauni P.S. Case No.369 of 2002. The owner, driver and the insurance company appeared before the tribunal and contested the case. 4. Perusal of the judgment and award impugned manifests that the tanker was duly insured by the appellant-insurance company which was effective from 29.8.2001 up to 28.8.2002, meaning thereby, the vehicle was duly insured on the date of accident i.e. 23.8.2002. It was also contended by the owner and the driver that the driver had a valid driving licence. The insurance company had appeared to contest the claim and the sole ground raised for avoiding the liability by the insurance company was that the driver was not duly authorized to drive the vehicle/tanker carrying the dangerous, inflammable, explosive or hazardous nature of goods. The tribunal after framing issues on the basis of the rival pleadings and after considering the evidence on record, was pleased to allow the claim case and hence this appeal. 5. I have heard Mr. Ram Chandra Lal Das, learned counsel for the appellant. 6. The only ground raised in this appeal by the appellant-insurance company to contest the judgment and award is that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold valid licence to drive the vehicle carrying explosive substance and which authorization was made only on 11.3.2003. 7. Pursuant to the order of this Court records have been summoned. 6. The only ground raised in this appeal by the appellant-insurance company to contest the judgment and award is that the driver of the offending vehicle did not hold valid licence to drive the vehicle carrying explosive substance and which authorization was made only on 11.3.2003. 7. Pursuant to the order of this Court records have been summoned. The driving licence of driver Shiv Nandan Paswan which was led as Exhibit-12 is a part of record and perusal thereof specifically manifests that said Shiv Nandan Paswan was authorized to drive vehicle carrying hazardous petroleum products by a certification dated as back as on 6.3.2002, i.e. much prior to the alleged accident which took place on 23.8.2002. In that view of the matter, the statement made by the appellant-insurance company regarding authorization of the driver to drive such vehicle only on 11.3.2003 is incorrect and contrary to the records. Even otherwise perusal of the impugned judgment and award manifests that the driver was authorized to drive heavy vehicle and the tanker does come within the category of heavy vehicle. In that view of the matter, no infirmity can be found in the judgment and award impugned. 8. This appeal is dismissed. 9. Let the statutory amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company be remitted to the learned Additional District Judge-I- cum- Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal-I, Begusarai for its disbursement in accordance with law. 10. Let the lower court records received in connection with MACT Case No.35 of 2003 be returned to the Additional District Judge-I–cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Begusarai forthwith. Appeal dismissed.