ORDER : 11.02.2014 - Heard Mr. S. Udgata, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel for opposite party No. 1. The petitioner, being the owner of the offending vehicle, has filed this writ application assailing the award dated 11.10.1999 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rourke1a in M.A.C. Case No. 153/71 of 1992-97 wherein the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award stating that owner the present petitioner (opposite party No. 1 in Court below) was driving the offending vehicle without having valid driving licence as he was not the person duly authorized to drive the vehicle. It was further observed that the Insurance Company-opposite party No. 1 (opposite party No. 2 in the Court below) is not liable to pay the compensation but opposite party No. 1 in the Court below, petitioner herein, is liable to pay the compensation. Mr. S. Udgata, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned award has been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner after transferring the matter from Sundargarh to Rourkela, thereby the learned Tribunal has committed illegality and irregularity while passing the impugned award. Mr. S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company opposite party No. 1 submits that the learned Tribunal by applying mind and basing on the materials available on record, has passed the impugned award and this Court should not interfere with the same. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, it appears that on 18.2.1992 at about 6 P.M. while the claimant-opposite party No. 2 was coming from his work site towards the Sector on the ring road, the scooter bearing registration No. ORE-7364 being driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him, as a result of which he fell down and sustained simple and grievous injuries on his right fore-hand and fingers. Thereafter, he was shifted to IGH and admitted there as an indoor patient for treatment. He filed a claim petition before the learned District Judge-cum-1st Asst. M.A.C.T., Sundargarh claiming an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. In the claim petition, it is stated that he was the only earning member of his family upon whom his old parents, wife and two minor children are fully dependent. He filed a claim petition before the learned District Judge-cum-1st Asst. M.A.C.T., Sundargarh claiming an amount of Rs.40,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him. In the claim petition, it is stated that he was the only earning member of his family upon whom his old parents, wife and two minor children are fully dependent. It is further stated that being a carpenter he was earning Rs.80/- per day and Rs.2,500/- per month and due to the injury and disability; he is unable to work as a result of which he sustained great loss financially, mentally and psychologically. Therefore, he claimed a total compensation of Rs.40,000/-. On being noticed, the owner, petitioner herein, filed its written statement denying the allegations made by the claimant and stating inter alia that he had the valid driving licence bearing No. 868 of 1988-89 on the date of the alleged accident and also denied the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the scooter. When the matter was sub-judice before learned District Judge-cum-1st M.A.C.T., Sundargarh, the same was transferred to the 2nd M.A.C.T., Rourkela. After the matter was transferred to the learned 2nd M.A.C.T., Rourkela, the same was registered as M.A.C. Case No. 153/71 of 1992-97. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after transfer of the matter, since no notice was given to the petitioner, there was no occasion on his part to know about the hearing of the case by the learned 2nd M.A.C.T., Rourkela. On perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the learned 2nd M.A.C.T., Rourkela has made observation, which reads as follows: "Opposite party No. 1 though filed written statement entirely denying the claim of the petitioner, did not contest the case at the time of hearing challenging the version of P.W.1. As a matter of fact, as owner and he was found driving the offending scooter at the time of accident, as is evident from the charge-sheet (Ext. 2). By the time of driving, whether he had valid driving licence to drive the motor vehicle." It is also observed that the petitioner was having driving licence, which was valid up to 19.8.1991 and the accident took place on 18.2.1992 and thus, by the date of accident, the petitioner did not have the valid driving licence? 2). By the time of driving, whether he had valid driving licence to drive the motor vehicle." It is also observed that the petitioner was having driving licence, which was valid up to 19.8.1991 and the accident took place on 18.2.1992 and thus, by the date of accident, the petitioner did not have the valid driving licence? Apart from the same, after transfer of the M.A.C. Case from Sundargarh to Rourkela, no notice had been given, thereby the petitioner could not participate in the hearing, as a result of which the impugned order has been passed against him. In view of the fact that the petitioner had a valid driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle had insurance coverage, he should not be saddled with the liability to pay the amount of compensation as per the impugned order. Accordingly, this Court directs the Insurance Company, opposite party No. 1 to make payment of the awarded amount as per the impugned order within a period of two months and the impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.