ORDER Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 2.1.2012 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C.-III, Saharsa, in Motor Accident Claim Tribunal in MACT Case No.18 of 2009 by which the appellant has been directed to indemnify the award. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the driver of the vehicle (respondent no.7) had no valid licence at the time of occurrence. As such, the owner of the vehicle has violated the terms of the policy. In this view of the matter, the insurer appellant is not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 4. The case of the claimant, in brief, is that the deceased Md. Israil while going on a bicycle was dashed by the truck bearing registration no.BR 1G-8754 due to rash and negligent driving as a result of which the deceased got severe injuries and succumbed to the injuries in Sadar Hospital, Saharsa during treatment. On the fard-beyan of Md. Kudus Saharsa P.S. Case No.196 of 2009 under sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code was instituted. The FIR is annexure-1and postmortem report is annexure-2. Salary slip of the deceased has also been annexed as annexure-3. 5. The owner and the driver filed their written statement stating therein that they are not liable to pay compensation as the vehicle was insured at the time of occurrence by the United India Insurance Company Limited and the amount, if any, may be paid by the insurance company. The opposite party no.3- the United Indian Insurance Company Limited has also filed written statement raising several objections including the fact that the driver had no valid licence. As such, the insurer is not liable to pay compensation. The evidence was adduced on behalf of the claimant. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the owner, driver and the insurer. As such, their evidence was closed on 7.9.2011. C.W.1- Saddam Hussain and C.W.2-Saida Khatoon, the widow of the deceased, have been examined and they supported the case of the claimant. 6. Considering the documentary and oral evidence, the learned Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle which was insured by the appellant. C.W.1- Saddam Hussain and C.W.2-Saida Khatoon, the widow of the deceased, have been examined and they supported the case of the claimant. 6. Considering the documentary and oral evidence, the learned Tribunal has held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle which was insured by the appellant. After making 1/4th deduction from the income of the deceased, the Tribunal has found that the claimants are entitled to get the amount of Rs13,29,952/- as compensation and the learned Tribunal has also given direction as to how much will be paid to each of the claimant. During the trial, the appellant did not adduce any evidence to show that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence whereas on behalf of the owner and the driver it was stated that the driver had valid licence. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.