JUDGMENT : Abdullah Gulamahmed Uraizee, J. 1. The present appeal emanates from the judgment and award dated 28.6.2011, passed by the Claims Tribunal (Main), Junagadh in MACP No. 983/99 wherein the appellant and respondents No. 2 to 5 are directed to pay sum of Rs. 85,880/- with 7.5% interest to respondent No. 1 original claimant, jointly and severally. 2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that respondent No. 1 was a pillion rider riding motor cycle bearing registration No. GJ-11-F-6782. His son Jayesh was plying motorcycle and they were going to village Chargam from Keshav. The motorcycle met with an accident with chakda autorickshaw bearing registration No. GJ 11T 4520 on Keshav-Mangrol road. The respondent No. 1 suffered bodily injuries. He, therefore, filed claim petition No. 983/99 in Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Junagadh against respondent No. 2, owner and driver of chakda rickshaw, which was insured with the insurance company and respondent No. 3, who was driving motorcycle on which respondent No. 1, was pillion riding and respondent No. 4 owner of the motorcycle and respondent No. 5-Oriental Insurance Company. There is no representation on behalf of other respondents. 3. Mr. Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant has raised a solitary contention that respondent No. 2 driver of offending chakda rickshaw was not holding a valid and effective license on the date of the accident. The issue of license was raised before the Tribunal in a written statement in para No. 7 as well as Exh. 73 written argument (para 6) but the Tribunal ignored this and has saddled the liability of compensation, jointly and severally, with other respondent on the appellant. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Malla Prakasarao v. Malla Janaki and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 343 . He, therefore, urges that the impugned judgment and award be modified and the appellant Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability. 5. Mr. V.C. Thomas, learned advocate for respondent No. 5 is not in a position to dispute the legal proposition of law that in absence of valid and effective license, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability of compensation on the appellant-Insurance company. 6. 5. Mr. V.C. Thomas, learned advocate for respondent No. 5 is not in a position to dispute the legal proposition of law that in absence of valid and effective license, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability of compensation on the appellant-Insurance company. 6. It appears from the record that appellant-Insurance Company, has raised the issue that respondent No. 2, herein is a driver and owner of the chakda rickshaw was not holding effective and valid license on the date of accident, in para No. 7 of the written statement. It further appears that the certificate of the RTO was also made available on the record of the Tribunal which reveals that respondent No. 2 has renewed the license after 7.6.1998 whereas the accident happened on 24.9.99. It further emerges from the impugned record that the appellant-Insurance company has raised the issue of the effective driving license in para 6 of Exh. 73 in the written arguments. But the impugned judgment and award nowhere refers to the issue and the Tribunal has not recorded any finding on the issue in the impugned judgment and award. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of Malla Prakasarao (supra) in para 1 has held as under: "It is not disputed that the driving licence of the driver of the vehicle had expired on 20-11-1982 and the driver did not apply for renewal within thirty days of the expiry of the said licence, as required under Section 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It is also not disputed that the driver of the vehicle did not have driving licence when the accident took place. According to the terms of the contract, the Insurance Company has no liability to pay any compensation where an accident takes place by a vehicle, driven by a driver without a driving licence. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the appeal." 8. It is thus, clear from the aforesaid proposition of law that respondent No. 2 was not holding effective and valid driving license on the date of accident to drive chakda rickshaw, the Tribunal ought not to have saddled the appellant-Insurance company with the liability of payment of compensation. 9. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. It is thus, clear from the aforesaid proposition of law that respondent No. 2 was not holding effective and valid driving license on the date of accident to drive chakda rickshaw, the Tribunal ought not to have saddled the appellant-Insurance company with the liability of payment of compensation. 9. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 85,880/- as compensation and appellant and respondent No. 2 to 5 are directed to pay the compensation jointly and severally and therefore as such the share of the appellant-Insurance company would come to Rs. 42,940/- plus 7.5% interest and therefore considering the smallness of the amount, I am not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. 10. Mr. V.C. Thomas, learned advocate for respondent No. 5 states that respondent No. 5-Insurance company has already deposited Rs. 61,455/- in the Tribunal as it appears from the claim payment voucher. 11. In view of the foregoing reasons appeal is dismissed. 12. By virtue of interim order passed by this Court the appellant-Insurance company has deposited the entire awarded compensation in the Tribunal out of which 30% is disbursed in favour of respondent No. 1 claimant. The Tribunal is directed to disburse further 20% amount from the amount lying with it to the claimants and refund the rest of the amount of 50% to the appellant. 13. The appeal is not entertained since the amount involved is small and therefore this judgment shall not be treated as precedent. 14. R & P shall be remitted to the trial court. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal Dismissed