JUDGMENT : DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J. 1. This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the judgment and award dated 22-2-2010 made by the learned District Judge-cum-Additional MACT-II, Fast Track Court-I, Shimoga, allowing the claimants MVC No. 651 of 2007 whereby an award is made for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with usual interest at the rate of 6% p.a. 2. In addition to that, a sum of Rs. 8,000/- is awarded to the claimants 1 to 5 each and another sum of Rs. 10,000/- is awarded to the share of claimant 6. 3. Despite service of notice, respondents-claimants are not present before the Court nor any one on their behalf is present. 4. The brief facts of case are that in a vehicular accident that happened on 19-5-2007 because of rash and negligent driving of Heavy Goods Vehicle (Lorry) bearing Reg. No. KA-10-1918, one Mrs. Mastan Bi a pedestrian was grievously injured and later succumbed to the same. The claim petition was presented by all the sons of the deceased. On service of notice, the respondents entered appearance and filed their common written statement resisting the claim petition on various grounds. 5. To prove the claim, claimant 5-Mohamed Yusuf was examined as P.W. 1 and as many as 6 documents were marked in his evidence. From the side of the respondents, one Dr. R.D. Hegde was examined as R.W. 1 and the respondent-Insurer got marked a case sheet as per Ex. R. 1 and Case Register extract as per Ex. R. 2. The Administrative Officer of the appellant-Insurance Company by name Smt. Komala Dinesh was also examined as R.W. 2, in whose evidence Ex. R. 3 i.e., Insurance Policy and Ex. R. 4 i.e., Covering Note came to be marked. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence tendered by them has entered a judgment and award which is now in challenge laid by the Insurance Company. 6. R. 3 i.e., Insurance Policy and Ex. R. 4 i.e., Covering Note came to be marked. The Tribunal after considering the pleadings of the parties and evidence tendered by them has entered a judgment and award which is now in challenge laid by the Insurance Company. 6. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company contends that it had specifically taken contention at para 6 of its statement of objections as to there being no valid and effective driving licence for the vehicle in question, which falls in the descriptions of heavy goods vehicle as defined under Section 2(16) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and therefore no liability could have been fastened on the Insurance Company when the terms of contract of insurance specifically requires the existence of valid and effective driving licence. The relevant portion of the said para 6 is reproduced below: "(6)... The vehicle involved in the alleged accident has no permit to ply in the territorial jurisdiction of the alleged accident. The driver who is on wheel do not possess valid and effective driving licence to drive the class of vehicle. The liability if any of this respondent will be as per the terms and conditions of the policy, if is issued, is valid and effective as on the alleged date of accident...." 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that in the provisions of Rule 245 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, the duty is cast on the Tribunal for framing issue after considering Written Statement: and the evidence of the witnesses. He grieves, this mandatory procedures having not been followed has resulted into huge loss is and prejudice to the appellant-Insurance Company. The said provision reads as follows: "245. Framing of issues.-After considering any written statement, the evidence of the witness examined and the result of any local inspection, the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to frame issues." 8. The learned Counsel, on the basis of this provision contends that if this issue had been framed taking into account the contentions taken up in its Written Statement, presumably the parties would have had the advantage of addressing the arguments, and Tribunal too would have adjudicated the said issue, which goes to the root of the matter. The learned Counsel, on the basis of this provision contends that if this issue had been framed taking into account the contentions taken up in its Written Statement, presumably the parties would have had the advantage of addressing the arguments, and Tribunal too would have adjudicated the said issue, which goes to the root of the matter. This legal requirement having not been complied with, the impugned judgment and award are fraught with an error of great magnitude warranting interference of this Court, in its appellant jurisdiction, to set the injustice at naught. 9. I have carefully considered the pleadings of the parties and evidentiary material available in the LCR before this Court. The contentions urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company merits acceptance, since a specific denial of its liability on the basis of driver not possessing a valid and effective driving licence as required for the vehicle of the description having been made, the appeal is entitled to be allowed. Therefore, I make the following: ORDER The appeal is allowed; the impugned judgment and award dated 22-2-2010 made by the learned District Judge-cum-Additional, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, I-Fast Track Court, Shimoga, in MVC No. 651 of 2007 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh within a time frame of three months from today. The amount in deposit is ordered to be refunded to the appellant-Insurance Company, forthwith.