JUDGMENT : Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J. 1. The present appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company (for short 'the Insurance Company') against the judgment and award dated 23.09.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge) Khetri (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 105/2011, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1, 73, 520/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition i.e. w.e.f. 12.09.2011 as compensation in favour of the respondent No. 1-claimant (for short 'the claimant'). 2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the Tribunal wrongly decided issue No. 3 against the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that as per evidence led by the claimant, respondent No. 2-Kishorilal was driving Marshal Jeep, but he did not possess the effective and valid driving license. At the time of driving the vehicle, he should possess the license to drive LMV vehicle but he had a license to drive a tractor only. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submits that Insurance Company had submitted the driving license verification report before the Tribunal as Ex.NA-2, but the Tribunal had not appreciated the evidence in right perspective. So, judgment and award passed by the Tribunal be modified accordingly. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company and submitted that the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that respondent No. 2-Kishorilal could drive the Marshal Jeep because he had a license to drive the tractor. So, as per judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in MACD 2017(3) (SC) 74, respondent No. 2-Kishorilal was entitled to drive the vehicle, the unladen weight of which is 7500 Kg. So, the Tribunal had not committed any error in deciding the issue No. 3 against the Insurance Company. So, appeal be dismissed. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for the respondent(s). 5. It is an admitted position that respondent No. 2-Kishorilal had a license to drive the tractor. So, appeal be dismissed. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company as well as learned counsel for the respondent(s). 5. It is an admitted position that respondent No. 2-Kishorilal had a license to drive the tractor. As per judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mukund Dewangan (supra), the respondent No. 2-Kishorilal was entitled to drive the vehicle, the unladen weight of which is 7500 Kg. So, in my considered opinion, the Tribunal had not committed any error in deciding the issue No. 3 against the Insurance Company. So, present appeal being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.