JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. S. Dutta Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, United Insurance Company Limited as well as Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents No.1 and 2. None appears for the respondent No.3 despite due notice from this court. 2. This appeal under Section 173 has been filed questioning the legality of the judgment and award dated 15.12.2012 by the insurer of the vehicle being commander jeep No. TR-01-4415. On raising two objections viz. (i) the death of the victim namely Nabin Kaipeng has not been proved to have occurred from the motor accident that which taken place on 30.03.2009 and (ii) the identity of the driver vis-a-vis the driving license has not been established by legal evidence. 3. The essential fact that would be necessary to appreciate the objection is that on 30.03.2009 at about 08.00 hours at Wai Ghati on Wai Ghati-Langtegan road under Killa Police Station a road traffic accident had taken place for rash and negligence driving of the said vehicle (commander jeep) and the victim, Nabin Kaipeng received serious injuries and after a period of substantial period of treatment he succumbed to the injuries. The victim was taken to the Teliamura hospital, wherefrom he was referred to GBP hospital, Agartala. He remained admitted there from 30.03.2009 to 17.05.2009. As the parents of Nabin Kaipeng was not in position to continue his treatment in the hospital for a long time, against the medical advice Nabin was discharged but he remained bed-ridden of 6 till his death. But he was under treatment of a local doctor. In respect of the said accident, Killa P.S. Case No.11 of 2009 under Section 279/338 of the IPC was initially registered. 4. At the time of death, the victim was aged about 12 years and the parents, the respondents No.1 and 2 claimed compensation for his death as a result of the road-traffic accident on 16.07.2009. After recording the evidence, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,37,120/- along with interest @ 9% from 07.07.2009, the date of filing the claimant petition till the payment is made. The appellant has been made liable to pay the said compensation as the vehicle under the valid insurance cover on the date of accident i.e. on 30.03.2009. This appeal is directed against the said judgment and award. 5. Mr. The appellant has been made liable to pay the said compensation as the vehicle under the valid insurance cover on the date of accident i.e. on 30.03.2009. This appeal is directed against the said judgment and award. 5. Mr. S. Dutta Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the doctor, Bimal Kalai, Medical Officer of Atharobhula Primary Health Center was examined as PW-3 by the claimants. He has testified in the inquiry that Nabin Kaipeng was under his treatment after his discharge from the hospital. During the treatment, he succumbed to his injuries on 16.07.2009. From the case-history so far he could recollect, he had stated that Nabin died due to the injuries sustained in the road-traffic accident occurred on 30.03.2009. After his death, PW-3 issued the certificate on 16.07.2009. In the cross-examination nothing could be extracted which is contrary to the said statement made in the examination-in-chief. Mr. Dutta Choudhury, learned counsel has submitted that the said oral statement is not based on any medical record and as such this court may not accept that statement for purpose of ascertaining the fact leading to death. Mr. Dutta Choudhury, learned counsel has also pointed out that the owner of the vehicle has simply stated in his written objection that the person who was driving at the relevant time the vehicle had valid license. From the ejahar dated 26.04.2009 it appears that one Jangte Kaipeng was driving the vehicle. But the driving license that has been produced by the owner disclose the name of the driver as Rabi Singh Kaipeng. Mr. S. Dutta Choudhury, learned counsel has therefore submitted that there is no evidence to show that Rabi Singh Kaipeng and Jangte Kaipeng is the same and one individual. He has taken this court to the impugned judgment where the tribunal has observed as under: “The opposite party No.1 has submitted driving licence in the name of one Rabi Singh Kaipeng but from the F.I.R., ejahar and charge-sheet is appear that one Shri Jangte Kaipeng was the driver of the offending vehicle. In the connection learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 relying upon the statement of Shri Biliram Maisum submitted that from the statement of this witness it is clear that actual name of the driver of the offending vehicle is Rabi Singh alias Jangte Kaipeng, so Rabi Singh Kaipeng and Jangte Kaipeng is the same person. In the connection learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 relying upon the statement of Shri Biliram Maisum submitted that from the statement of this witness it is clear that actual name of the driver of the offending vehicle is Rabi Singh alias Jangte Kaipeng, so Rabi Singh Kaipeng and Jangte Kaipeng is the same person. The submission of the learned counsel is found acceptable and so I accept that Rabi Singh and Jangte Kaipeng is the same person and he was driving the vehicle at the time of occurrence.” 6. Mr. S. Dutta Choudhury, learned counsel has submitted that the owner in his written objection did not reveal that position of fact. All on a sudden, by aid of the police report and the statement recorded by the Police Officer under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. where one Shri Biliram Malsum has stated that Rabi Singh Kaipeng and Jangte Kaipeng is the same individual. The said evidence was advanced and accepted without any pleading and as such it can not be accepted under rule of evidence by the tribunal for purpose of coming to any conclusion as to the identity of the driver of the vehicle. 7. Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents has however submitted that not only from the final police report but also from the judgment and order dated 23.09.2013 delivered in GR 200 of 2009, it would be apparent that for the said accident, the driver of the vehicle was prosecuted and by the said order dated 23.09.2003 after a full fledged trial the said driver was acquitted. In the para-10, the trial court [Judicial Magistrate, First Class Court No.2, Udaipur, South Tripura] has observed as under: “Thus, in the light of the above discussion and observation made here-in-above, I am considered view that the accused person namely-Sri Jangte Kaipeng @ Rabi Singh Kaipeng of Dhanalekha, P.S. Taidu is hereby acquitted from the charges as labelled against him punishable Under Sections 279/338 of the Indian Penal Code and the surety of the accused person is also discharged from the liability of the bail bond. The sized alamat, if any, should be disposed of after observing all legal formalities.” As such, according to Mr. Lodh, learned counsel, there cannot be any confusion as to the identity of the driver. 8. The sized alamat, if any, should be disposed of after observing all legal formalities.” As such, according to Mr. Lodh, learned counsel, there cannot be any confusion as to the identity of the driver. 8. Having perused the records as produced before this court and on appreciation of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents No.1 and 2, this court is of the considered view that by substantive evidence it has been established that the death occurred to the victim has arisen from the injuries that he had received in the said road-traffic accident. Further, the identity of the driver vis-a-vis the driving license has been well established by producing the records. Moreover, the insurance company did not adduce any evidence of rebuttal to probabalise a case contrary-wise and hence, this appeal being bereft of merit, is dismissed. The insurance company is directed to make the payment within a period of one month from today in the tribunal. After such payment is made the claimant-respondents No. 1 and 2 will be entitled to receive the said amount from the tribunal on proper identification. The Send down the LCRs forthwith.