JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A. Gon Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. P.S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2 and 3, and Mr. R. Pal, learned counsel for the respondent No.4. 2. This is an appeal by the United India Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer of the offending motor-bike bearing registration No.TR-01-P-5742. 3. By means of this appeal, the judgment and award dated 08.12.2015 delivered in T.S.(MAC)427/2013 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, West Tripura, Agartala, has been called in question on the solitary ground as urged by Mr. Gon Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the offending bike was being driven by the respondent No.4 without valid license. 4. Mr. Gon Choudhury, learned counsel has submitted that it is the admitted position that the deceased who was proceeding on foot was hit by the motor-bike bearing registration No.TR-01-P-5742 at a place near ‘Kali Mandir’ at Garjan Tilla at about 6.00 pm on 08.09.2013. The victim, Ratan Das, succumbed to the injuries on the same day i.e. 08.09.2013. The respondents No.1 to 3, who filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, are the dependant wife, mother and daughter. They claimed compensation to the extent of Rs.34,55,000. But on appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,34,000 as compensation directing further that the said compensation to be paid by the appellant herein with interest at 9% per annum from the day of filing the claim petition i.e. 19.11.2013. 5. The solitary ground that has been raised in this appeal is that, in the background of the admitted position of fact is that the respondent No.4 was driving the motor-bike only with a ‘Learner Licence’ and thus he was not supposed to drive the motor-bike by himself alone without being accompanied the person having valid licence who is supposed to have the control over the vehicle from the position whenever it is required. Since that was not so done, the appellant cannot be saddled with obligation to pay the award, as it is a clear breach of condition of the insurance which, according to Mr. Gon Choudhury, the insured can drive vehicle only with a valid Driving Licence. Since that was not so done, the appellant cannot be saddled with obligation to pay the award, as it is a clear breach of condition of the insurance which, according to Mr. Gon Choudhury, the insured can drive vehicle only with a valid Driving Licence. But in this case, the requirement of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 has been clearly contravened inasmuch as the provisions of Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 prohibits driving of any motor vehicle unless the learner has besides him a person duly licensed to drive the vehicle and painted the letter ‘L’ in red, both in the front and in the rear of the vehicle. 6. This court has scrutinised the records and finds that the appellant neither in the written objection which was filed alongwith the petition under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act nor during the cross-examination of PW.1, Smt. Basanti Deb did aver or confront on that aspect of the matter. Nowhere from the record it can be availed as well that there was any other person in the motor vehicle while the respondent No.4 was driving the vehicle and hit the victim as stated. In absence of pleading and evidence in support thereof, this plea cannot be raised at this stage as there is no such evidence to appreciate. 7. Accordingly, this court does not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The appellant is directed to deposit the entire awarded sum within a period of 2(two) months from today in the Tribunal after deducting the amount the appellant has already paid. The respondents No.1, 2 and 3 may receive the amount which has been deposited in the Registry on proper identification and in the manner in which the Tribunal has directed to disburse or maintain the share for the respective claimant-respondents. Send down the LCRs forthwith.