JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeal stands directed against the award pronounced by the Learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (II), Solan camp at Nalagarh, whereby, the learned Tribunal adjudged compensation vis-a-vis, the LRs of deceased Laxmi Devi, who met her end, in an accident caused, by the rash negligent driving of the offending vehicle, by one Bhupinder Singh (respondent No.6 herein). The quantum, of, compensation amount adjudged thereunder vis-a-vis the legal heirs of deceased Laxmi Devi, is, constituted in a sum of Rs.14,37,500/- and interest at the rate of 9% per annum, is, levied thereon, commencing, from, the date of petition up till its deposit. Compensation amount has been apportioned, amongst the claimants in the hereafter extracted manner:- “Petitioner No.1: Rs.5,37,500/- Petitioner No.2: Rs.3,00,000/- Petitioner No.3: Rs.3,00,000/- Petitioner No.4: Rs.3,00,000/-” Obviously indemnificatory liability thereof, has been fastened, upon the insurer/appellant herein. The Appellant/insurer is aggrieved therefrom, hence, has instituted the instant appeal before this Court. 2. Note-worthily the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer, is only, for reversing the findings rendered by the learned Tribunal, vis-a-vis issue No.4, appertaining to the driver of the offending vehicle, holding a valid and effective driving licence, to, at the time contemporaneous to the accident, hence drive it, (I) given theirs rather wanting in force, besides substance nor being supported, by any tangible evidence, of, any creditworthiness, (ii) hence, he further contends, that the findings recorded upon issue No.4, by the learned tribunal, warrant interference by this Court. 3. To support his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant has averred in paragraph No.2 of the grounds of appeal (i) that with the government of Nagaland, wherefrom whose jurisdiction the contentious driving licence, held, by the driver of the offending vehicle, stands issued, having issued a notification No. TC-23/MV/2007[PT-1] of 1.8.2014, (ii) whereby all driving licences, issued in booklet form, after 30th October, 2009, warranting holders thereof, to report to the offices concerned, wherefrom, they stood issued, for enabling digitization of the data, and, for their issuance in smart card form. (iii) AND with the date for completion of the aforesaid processes, being mandated therein, to be, before 1st December, 2014. (iii) AND with the date for completion of the aforesaid processes, being mandated therein, to be, before 1st December, 2014. (iv) Besides with the driving licence, held, by the driver of the offending vehicle, being issued after 30th October, 2009, hence, enjoined compliance, with the mandate, of, the afore-referred notification, (v) whereas, compliance thereof standing evidently, not meted, by the driver of the offending vehicle, thereupon, no reliance was imputable vis-a-vis Ex.R4. 4. For the aforesaid submission to carry weight and vigour, it was imperative for the counsel, for the insurer, to place on record, the aforesaid notification before the learned Tribunal concerned, (I) conspicuously given, upon its standing adduced, in evidence, therebefore, and, its nullificatory applicability upon Ex. R- 4, yet being omitted to be discerned besides adjudicated upon, by the learned Tribunal, (ii) would thereupon, render enabled this Court, to conclude of their occurring palpable discardings, by the learned Tribunal concerned, vis-a-vis the impact of the aforestated notification, upon the validity of Ex. R-4, (iii) hence, the award under challenge before this Court, for apposite discardings of germane material, appertaining to the validity of Ex. R-4, when, hence rendered the latter exhibit to enjoy no force, (iv) thereon any imputation of any validity thereon, by the learned Tribunal rather vested jurisdiction in this Court, to reverse the findings recorded upon apposite issue No.4, by the learned Tribunal. However, a close perusal of the record, as requisitioned from the learned Tribunal concerned, makes disclosures, of the counsel for the respondent No.6 herein, tendering into evidence Ex.R-4, and, at the time of Ex. R-4 being tendered into evidence, the counsel for the insurer, did not contest its validity or authenticity nor he subsequent thereto tendered into evidence, the aforestated notification, (v) for, espousing that given its mandate being visibly infracted, thereupon, Ex. R-4 not enjoying any force, (vi) the aforesaid omission is grave and obviously disables, the insurer/appellant, to urge before this Court through its counsel, that the aforesaid notification, despite, being tendered into evidence its import besides evdentiary worth remained unassessed nor also he is enabled, to urge, that there occurs any perversity or absurdity, in the impugned award, (vii) arising from gross mis-appreciation of evidence, impinging upon the creditworthiness, of, Ex. R-4. (viii) More so, when the validity of Ex. R-4, remained uncontested at the time of its standing tendered besides exhibition marks, being endorsed thereon. R-4. (viii) More so, when the validity of Ex. R-4, remained uncontested at the time of its standing tendered besides exhibition marks, being endorsed thereon. Consequently, any reliance here before by the Appellant, upon, the aforesaid notification, dehors, its non adduction into evidence before the learned tribunal, for assessing its impact upon the validity of Ex. R-4, is of no worth, rather given the lack of any contest by the counsel, for the insurance company, before, the learned tribunal vis-a-vis Ex. R4, conspicuously at the time of its tendering besides exhibition marks being endorsed thereon, contrarily, renders Ex. R-4 to enjoy legal force, of, the fullest legal vigour. 5. The above discussion unfolds the fact that the conclusions as arrived by the learned tribunal are based upon a proper and mature appreciation of the relevant evidence on record. While rendering the findings, the learned tribunal has not excluded germane and apposite material from consideration. 6. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. The impugned award is maintained and affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.