ORDER 1. This appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988 has been filed by the Insurance Company/original respondent No.2 against an award dated 27.11.2009 passed by MACT, Rewa in Claim Case No.64/2008 to exonerate the liability imposed by the Tribunal on the appellant. 2. Present respondents No.1 to 4 filed a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal on pleadings that on 9.1.2008 Jagdish Prasad Sahu was driving his motorcycle bearing Registration No.MP17-HB-7986 on his right side and was going to Naigadi. Present respondent No.6 Madan alias Rakesh Patel, who was driving Jeep bearing Registration No.MP-17-A/5312 rashly and negligently dashed with the above-mentioned motorcycle, resulted in fatal injuries to Jagdish Prasad succumbed to his injuries. After the accident, respondent No.6 fled away from the spot with his Jeep. A crime was registered at police station Garh in relation to above-mentioned accident. Claimants were dependents on the income of deceased Jagdish Prasad Sahu, who was aged about 40 years and was working as a peon in Government Higher Secondary School Garh and was receiving monthly pay of Rs.7,128/-. The above-mentioned Jeep was insured with the present appellant/original respondent No.2, thus, they are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation to the claimants. The compensation of Rs.20,83,000/- was claimed. 3. Present respondent No.5 as non-applicant No.1 pleaded before the Tribunal that the deceased was himself driving his motorcycle rashly and negligently as he was not a trained driver. Non-applicant No.1 was driving the above-mentioned Jeep owned by him properly and carefully. In the alternative it was pleaded that if any liability is found proved against him, insurance company of his vehicle/appellant is liable, as his vehicle was insured. 4. Insurance Company as non-applicant No.2 pleaded before the Tribunal that the deceased was not a Government servant. At the time of accident, the Jeep was being driven in contravention of the terms of the insurance policy and the deceased was not having a valid and effective driving licence in relation to his motorcycle. Deceased was himself liable for the accident. Thus, the insurance company is not liable to the compensation. 5. Before the Tribunal claimant No.1 Narvadiya alias Shivrati (PW1), Ravendra Prasad Mishra (PW2) and Principal of High Secondary School, J.L. Swarnkar (PW3) were examined for the claimants. The Jeep driver-cum-owner Madan alias Rakesh Patel (DW1) examined himself. Deceased was himself liable for the accident. Thus, the insurance company is not liable to the compensation. 5. Before the Tribunal claimant No.1 Narvadiya alias Shivrati (PW1), Ravendra Prasad Mishra (PW2) and Principal of High Secondary School, J.L. Swarnkar (PW3) were examined for the claimants. The Jeep driver-cum-owner Madan alias Rakesh Patel (DW1) examined himself. For appellant Insurance Co., its official Amit Choubey (DW2) was examined. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that it was proved that the Jeep driver-cum-owner Rakesh alias Madan Patel (DW1) was having only a learner's driving licence (Ex.D-1), but he was driving a commercial vehicle, but the learned Tribunal erred in fastening the liability of payment of compensation on the insurance company, as the contravention of the terms of the insurance policy was clearly proved. 7. On the other hand, it has been argued by the counsel of original claimants that the learned Tribunal has properly and legally appreciated the oral and documentary evidence produced before it. Thus, the dismissal of the appeal is prayed. 8. Appellant's witness Amit Choubey (DW2) stated in his examination-in-chief, filed as an affidavit under Order 18 rule 4 of the CPC, that the questioned Jeep was insured with the appellant for a period from 1.11.2007 to 31.10.2008 and its registered owner was Rakesh Kumar Patel and this Jeep comes under the category of Maxicab class of the vehicles and thus, on the date of accident, i.e. 9.1.2008 the respondent No.5 Rakesh Patel was not having a legal and effective driving licence to drive maxicab falling under the category of commercial vehicles. But, he did not prove the original or certified copy of the insurance policy. He admitted in his cross-examination that the risk of third party was covered under the insurance policy. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant after drawing attention to the filed photocopy of learners driving licence Ex.D-1(c) relating to Rakesh Kumar Patel contended that it was not proved by the present respondent No.5 that at the time of accident, the relating rules applicable to learner's driving licence were being followed. On Ex.D-1(c), three dates 20.11.2007, 15.5.2008 and 14.11.2008 are written. Rakesh alias Madan Patel (DW1) stated in his examination-in-chief that he is registered owner of the questioned Jeep and he himself was driving the jeep and was having valid driving licence. On Ex.D-1(c), three dates 20.11.2007, 15.5.2008 and 14.11.2008 are written. Rakesh alias Madan Patel (DW1) stated in his examination-in-chief that he is registered owner of the questioned Jeep and he himself was driving the jeep and was having valid driving licence. He also deposed that the jeep was being used only for private purposes and it was not being commercially used for carrying passengers. In cross-examination by present appellant's counsel, he deposed that at the time of accident he was alone in the Jeep and he denied the suggestion given by the appellant's counsel that at the time of accident he was not having valid and effective driving licence, permit and other papers. He also denied the suggestion given by the appellant's counsel that on the relating date he was using his vehicle in contravention of the terms of the insurance policy. It is clear from his total deposition that even no any suggestion was given to him by the appellant's counsel on the point that he was having only a learner's driving licence. 10. The learned Tribunal has categorically recorded finding in para No.19 that Ex.D-1(c) was issued for driving light motor vehicles as well as maxicab and after referring a case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarn Singh and other [(2004)1 T.A.C. 321], decided by Hon'ble apex Court recorded the finding that the insurance company remained unsuccessful in proving that on the date of accident the questioned Jeep was being driven in contravention of the Insurance policy. Even the certified copy of the insurance policy was not filed by the appellant. In such state of evidence, it could not be inferred that the learned Tribunal had committed any error in recording above-mentioned finding. 11. On other points also, it is found that the Tribunal has properly and legally appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in calculating the compensation. 12. In the result, this appeal filed by the insurance company appears to be merit-less and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.