Judgment Mr. H.S. Madaan, J.:-Briefly stated, facts of the case are that bus No.PB-11/9277 belonging to Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala(hereinafter referred to as PRTC, Patiala) driven by Kuldip Singhwas involved in a road side accident, which took place on 15.6.1991,resulting in death of Bachan Lal. Legal representatives of Bachan Laldeceased had brought a claim petition against Kuldip Singh--driverand PRTC, Patiala--owner of the bus before Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal, Kurukshetra. The claimants had not impleadedNational Insurance Company Ltd., Chandigarh with which the buswas insured at the relevant time i.e. from 28.7.89 to 27.7.90. Theclaim petition was accepted by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,Kurukshetra vide award dated 19.11.1991 and compensation ofRs.1,44,000/- along with 12% interest from the date of filing of theclaim petition till realization was awarded. PRTC, Patiala wasproceeded against ex-parte in those proceedings. 2. PRTC, Patiala paid the compensation of Rs.1,84,274/- ondated 2.12.1993. A legal notice was sent by PRTC, Patiala to thedefendant company to pay Rs.1,84,274/-, which it had paid to theclaimants. When the amount was not deposited/paid, then theplaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,98,094/- against the NationalInsurance Company. 3. On getting notice of the suit, the defendant insurancecompany put in appearance and filed written statement raisingpreliminary objections with regard to jurisdiction of the Civil Courtto try the suit contending that suit was time barred. On merits, thedefendant admitted that plaintiff had insured 1048 buses ofcorporation under the policy and provisions of Motor Vehicles Act.The defendant denied receipt of letter dated 19.10.1988 contendingthat the insurance policy had been issued. However, the plaintiff wasnot entitled for reimbursement because under the procedure, they hadto appear before the MACT, Kurukshetra and offer a contest;furthermore award was not passed against the insurance company, sothe insurance company was not bound to deposit the amount ofaward and that the plaintiff had violated the terms and conditions ofthe insurance policy. In the end, the defendant prayed for dismissalof the suit. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues wereframed: 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount? OPP. 2. Whether Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit?OPD. 3. Whether suit is time barred? OPD. 4. Relief. 5. Both the parties are afforded adequate opportunities tolead their evidence. 6. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues wereframed: 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount? OPP. 2. Whether Civil Court has got no jurisdiction to try the suit?OPD. 3. Whether suit is time barred? OPD. 4. Relief. 5. Both the parties are afforded adequate opportunities tolead their evidence. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the trialCourt decided issue No.1 against the plaintiff and in favour of thedefendant, issue No.2 against the defendant and in favour of theplaintiff, issue No.3 against the defendant and in favour of theplaintiff. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed withcosts. This was so done vide judgment and decree dated 4.8.1997. 7. The plaintiff was aggrieved by the said judgment anddecree and he had filed an appeal before the Court of District Judge,Patiala, who vide judgment and decree dated 31.8.2000 accepted theappeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Courtand decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of amount ofRs.1,98,094/- with future interest @ 6% from the date of filing of suittill realization. 8. Now it was turn of the defendant to feel dissatisfied andit had filed the present regular second appeal before this Court, noticeof which was issued to the respondent/plaintiff, who appearedthrough counsel. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides goingthrough the record. 10. A perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the trialCourt goes to show that the trial Court while dismissing the suit filedby the plaintiff was influenced by the fact that the plaintiff had failedto produce any witness to show that bus driver was having a validdriving licence; the driver possessing a valid driving licence was acondition of the policy and further the fact that plaintiff had not filedany application to set aside the ex parte proceedings and further hadnot filed any appeal before this Court, which goes against its caseand the plaintiff was not entitled to get reimbursement on account ofviolation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Suchconclusion drawn by the trial Court was erroneous and notsustainable. 11. That wrong was rightly rectified by learned DistrictJudge, Patiala by way of setting aside the judgment and decreepassed by the trial Court and decreeing the suit instituted by theplaintiff. Suchconclusion drawn by the trial Court was erroneous and notsustainable. 11. That wrong was rightly rectified by learned DistrictJudge, Patiala by way of setting aside the judgment and decreepassed by the trial Court and decreeing the suit instituted by theplaintiff. Learned District Judge, Patiala has observed that it wasvery surprising to note that the defendant insurance company in itswritten statement even denied those facts, which were patently trueand were patently admitted by it to be true like plaintiff PRTC,Patiala suing through Managing Director when defendant insurancecompany itself had been addressing its letters to plaintiff PRTC,Patiala through its Managing Director. Furthermore, the defendantcompany had denied happening of the accident even involving busNo.PB-11/9277 or any claim petition having been filed beforeMACT, Kurukshetra or award of Rs.1.44 lakhs having been passedby the Tribunal. 12. Learned District Judge, Patiala in light of Section 96(2)of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Equivalent to Section 149 of theMotor Vehicles Act, 1988, interpreted by Allahabad High Court injudgment Sheo Prasad Tewari Vs. District Judge, Fatehpur and others, AIR 1985, Allahabad 354 had also concluded that noticecould be given after passing of the award and defendant insurancecompany could not escape its liability to reimburse the plaintiffcorporation for the amount of compensation paid by it relating to anaccident caused by one of its buses, which was insured with the saidinsurance company. It was observed that the defendant insurancecompany had not examined any witness in support of its contentions. 13. While dealing with the reasoning given by the trial Courtfor dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff, learned District Judge,Patiala had observed that the defendant company in the writtenstatement had not taken up plea that Kuldeep Singh driver was nothaving a valid driving licence at the time of accident, it lookedimprobable that the plaintiff corporation whose main business istransportation of passengers throughout the Punjab and outside,which has got a large fleet of buses, employees drivers, who are notlicenced, as such it was for the defendant insurance company toprove that Kuldip Singh was not having a valid licence and if thedefendant company did not get any opportunity to take this pleabefore Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra, it could havetaken the plea before the Civil Court and could have proved thatKuldip Singh driver was not holding a driving licence on 15.6.1991when he had caused the accident. It has further been observed thatdefendant company had denied those facts which were patently trueto their knowledge and failed to plead these which were available tothem and which it was bound to plead before succeeding. Therefore,the reasoning given by the trial Court in that regard was erroneous. 14. I find that the judgment passed by the trial Court showedlack of application of judicious mind and inability to analyze thefactual and judicial position properly, whereas judgment passed bylearned District Judge, Patiala is well reasoned based upon properappraisal and appreciation of evidence and correct interpretation oflaw. There is no illegality or infirmity therein. 15. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the present appeal anddo not see any reason to disturb the legal, valid and well reasonedjudgment passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala. 16. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 17. The appeal stands dismissed accordingly.