JUDGMENT P. K. TRIPATHY, J. — Heard analogously both the appeals on the prayer of both the parties inasmuch as the award passed in M.A.C.T. Misc. Case No. 248 of 1982 by the Third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Puri is under challenge in both the aforesaid appeals. M. A. No. 155 of 1992 has been filed by the claimant challenging the quantum of compensation granted as insufficient whereas M.A. No. 434 of 1992 has been filed by the Divisional Manager, United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack, the opp. party No. 2 in the Court below, challenging to the legality of the aforesaid award. 2. The fact which is not in dispute is that on 28.7.1982 at about 9.50 A.M., the claimant, an employee in the State Secre¬tariat as a Typist, met with an accident being hit from behind by truck bearing registration No. O.R.U. 1039 and because of that accident, he sustained injuries including fracture injuries as noted in the claim application. The contention of the claimant is that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and that the vehicle was then validly insured with the opp. party No. 2 and further that he is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 49,043/-. That claim was however, disputed, controverted and contested by the opp. party No. 2 who filed a written statement. At the stage of hearing, the claimant examined three witnesses including himself as P.W.No.1, and tendered in evidence Exts. 1 to 13 which are inclusive of documents in sup¬port of treatment and also police papers and F.I.R. in support of the accident and the investigation and seizure in that connec¬tion. No evidence whatsoever was adduced by the opposite party members. 3. The Court below framed the following four issues : Issues 1. Is the claim petition maintainable as framed ? 2. Was the driver of O.R.U. 1039-Truck negligent in causing the accident ? 3. To what compensation the petitioner is entitled to ? 4. Relief ? On the basis of evidence on record decided all such issues in favour of the claimant. Claimant had made the claim of Rs. 2043/- towards the loss of income for three months and as against that the Tribunal granted Rs. 1362/- and rounded that to Rs. 1480-. Claimant claimed Rs. 4. Relief ? On the basis of evidence on record decided all such issues in favour of the claimant. Claimant had made the claim of Rs. 2043/- towards the loss of income for three months and as against that the Tribunal granted Rs. 1362/- and rounded that to Rs. 1480-. Claimant claimed Rs. 10,000/-towards the medical expenditure during the period of treatment and that amount was granted in his favour in entirety. Because of his inability to ride a bicycle and resorting to conveyance by rickshaw, claimant made the claim of Rs. 7,000/- towards conveyance charges and that amount was al¬lowed in its entirety. A claim of Rs. 30,000/- towards mental shock and physical pain and suffering as claimed by the claimant was however fixed at Rs. 6600/- and accordingly learned Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 25,000/- as compensation with 9% interest pendente lite and thereafter penal interest @ 12% if the compensation is not paid within a period of three months from 16.12.1991 i.e., the date of award. 4. The bone of contention of the Insurance Company/opp. party No. 2 (which has preferred M.A.No. 434 of 1992) is that in the absence of framing of any issue and proof of existence of a valid insurance policy to attract liability of the opp. party No. 2, the impugned award as against the said opposite party is not sustainable. The other argument advanced by the opp. party No. 2 is that in the absence of proof that the person who was driving the truck was authorised to drive vehicle and had valid driving licence the award is equally vulnerable. In course of hearing, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Insurance Company (O.P. No. 2) states that it is just and proper that the matter should be remanded to the Court below giving an opportunity to adduce proper evidence by the claimant or by the owner as the case may be in the aforesaid two respects. In support of that submission and the legal requirement thereon, Mr. Mohanty, refers to the decision reported in 1997 (7) Judgment Today 736 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Gian Chand and others). 5. Contention of the claimant is that the award is inade¬quate. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the claimant argues that grant of Rs. In support of that submission and the legal requirement thereon, Mr. Mohanty, refers to the decision reported in 1997 (7) Judgment Today 736 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Gian Chand and others). 5. Contention of the claimant is that the award is inade¬quate. Mr. Jena, learned counsel for the claimant argues that grant of Rs. 6,600/- towards mental shock and physi¬cal pain and suffering is just inadequate and that should have been also granted in entirety. While replying to the aforesaid argu¬ments of the opp. party No. 2, Mr. Jena states that the accident occurred in the year 1982 and 20 years have elapsed in the mean¬time and therefore an order for remand of the case may not be in the interest of justice when the documents on record, not contro¬verted by opp. party No. 2, prove the legal requirement relating to a valid insurance and a valid driving licence. 6. Before dealing with the contentions raised as above, it is appropriate to take note of the evidence on record which the learned Tribunal considered in support of the award made by him. While supporting his case, the claimant was examined as P.W. No.1. He deposed about the accident and the suffering and that part of his evidence is supported by the other P.Ws. Though the opp. party No. 2 cross-examined the P.W. No. 1 but even a sugges¬tion was not given relating to the person driving the vehicle having no valid driving licence. It appears from the list of documents available in the lower Court record that the documents were marked as Exhibits without objection. Ext. 11 is the F.I.R. which indicates about an accident having taken place in the manner indicated in the claim application and the claimant sus¬taining the injury, Ext.12 is the copy of the seizure-list in the corresponding G. R. Case, in Col. 4 of which the articles seized had been noted as follows : “4. Articles seized : (1) One TATA truck No. ORU 1039. (2) R.C. Book of ORU 1039 in the name of owner Udaya Singh Tax paid upto 30.9.82. (3) I. C. of ORU 1039 of United India Insurance Company Ltd. No. 132686 valid 30.10.82. (4) DL No. 1210/80 valid till 7.8.83 in the name of driver Maguni Charan Das and authorised to drive light motor vehicle.” Ext. (2) R.C. Book of ORU 1039 in the name of owner Udaya Singh Tax paid upto 30.9.82. (3) I. C. of ORU 1039 of United India Insurance Company Ltd. No. 132686 valid 30.10.82. (4) DL No. 1210/80 valid till 7.8.83 in the name of driver Maguni Charan Das and authorised to drive light motor vehicle.” Ext. 13 which is the certified copy of the charge-sheet in G. R. case No. 1535 of 1982 submitted after completion of investigation by the I.O. Kharabelanagar Police-station and the net outcome from the investigation as noted in the concluding paragraphs of the charge-sheet reads as hereunder : “On 28.7.82 at about 9.30. A.M. the accd. noted in Col. 4 rash and negligent driving on public road and causing grievous hurt to the witness Sl. 2 Col. 6 at Unit IX crossing Sachibalaya Marga.” It thus appears from the undisputed oral and documentary evidence that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the person who had a valid driving licence, may be for light vehicle, but there is nothing to indicate that person was not authorised by the owner of the truck to drive the same. 7. Learned counsel for the claimant has referred to and relied on A.I.R. 2001 Rajasthan 334 Rajasthan State Road Trans¬port Corporation v. Nand Kishore and others, in support of the contention that such documents in a summary enquiry like an in¬quiry under the M.V. Act should be accepted as evidence by avoiding technicalities. Keeping in view the provision of law this Court does not entirely agree with the view expressed by the Rajasthan High Court. To make the aforesaid finding more clear it may be stated here that certified copies of the F.I.R., charge-sheet or seizure-list ipso facto do not get exemption of proof being prepared by investigating officer in due discharge of the official duty unless such documents and contents thereof is not disputed or admitted in evidence on consent or without objection from the opponent. Or else such documents are to be read in evidence if proved in accordance with law. Of course, even if, such documents are admitted without objection dispensing with the procedure for formal proof and accepted as evidence, the opponent can always lead evidence to contradict or falsify such evidence. Thus, such documents in such cases, shall have rebuttable presumption. 8. Or else such documents are to be read in evidence if proved in accordance with law. Of course, even if, such documents are admitted without objection dispensing with the procedure for formal proof and accepted as evidence, the opponent can always lead evidence to contradict or falsify such evidence. Thus, such documents in such cases, shall have rebuttable presumption. 8. As already noted in this case when such evidentiary value of documents vide Exts. 11, 12 and 13 prove the fact of accident driving by a person having valid driving licence, suf¬fering injury by the claimant and validity of the Insurance Policy to cover the period of accident and such documents being marked without objection added with the circumstance that no rebuttal evidence is available, this Court finds the claimant to have proved his case entitling himself for compensation. Thus a case for remand as prayed for by the opp. party No. 2 is not at all made out. 9. In the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shri Gian Chand and Ors. JT 1997 (7) S.C. 736 the Apex Court while exonerated the Insurance Company from payment of compensation on the ground that the vehicle was driven by a unlicensed driver. In that context the Apex Court quoted with approval the ratio in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. 1996 (2) SCC 328 wherein it has been propounded that : “......the exclusion clause in the insurance Policy makes it clear that the Insurance Company, in the event of an accident, would be liable only if the vehicle was being driven by a person holding a valid driving licence or a permanent driving licence “other than a learner’s licence”. The use of the words “permanent driving licence” in the insurance policy was to emphasise that a temporary or a learner’s licence-holder would not be covered by the insurance policy.” Claimant in that context has relied on a recent decision from the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 2001 Supreme Court 1419, New India Assurance Co., Shimla v. Kanku and others. After taking note of several decisions of the same Court their Lordships have held that : “25. The position can be summed up thus : The insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. After taking note of several decisions of the same Court their Lordships have held that : “25. The position can be summed up thus : The insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, if there was any breach of policy condition on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid licence. Learned counsel for the insured contended that it is enough if he establishes that he made all due enquiries and believed bona fide that the driver employed by him had a valid driving licence, in which case there was no breach of the policy condition. As we have not decided on that contention it is open to the insured to raise it before the Claims Tribunal. In the present case, if the Insurance Company succeeds in establishing that there was breach of the policy condition, the Claims Tribunal shall direct the insured to pay that amount to the insurer. In default the insurer shall be allowed to recover that amount (which the insurer is directed to pay to the claimants-third parties) from the insured person.” 10. Without restating the facts and evidence involved and available in the case at hand but following the above quoted ratio, it can safety be decided that, under the given facts and circumstance the opp. party No. 2 shall pay the compensation awarded in the claim case. If the opp. party No. 2 shall raise a dispute in appropriate forum that the driver who caused the accident had no valid licence to drive the truck which caused the accident, then it is open to the opp. party No. 2 to make claim for recovery of the amount paid to the claimant from the owner of the truck inasmuch as if not the insurer then the owner of the truck is liable to pay the compensation to the victim of the accident. If such dispute shall be raised by the opp. party No. 2 to make claim for recovery of the amount paid to the claimant from the owner of the truck inasmuch as if not the insurer then the owner of the truck is liable to pay the compensation to the victim of the accident. If such dispute shall be raised by the opp. party No. 2, notwithstanding any finding recorded here such Court shall decide that issue on the basis of evidence on record and in accordance with law. This observation as this Court feels, is sufficient to take care of the grievance of the opp. party No. 2 though the opp. party No. 2 did not adduce any evidence before the Claims Tribunal to exonerate it from the liability to make payment of the compensation. 11. Reverting to the contention of the claimant for higher compensation than that is awarded and on careful perusal of the evidence on record, this Court finds that the quantum of compen¬sation granted in favour of the claimant is just and proper and that is not liable to be enhanced. 12. For the reasons indicated and the findings in the preceding paragraphs, appeals filed by the claimants and the opp. party No. 2 stand dismissed. Under the given facts and circum¬stances parties are to bear their respective costs of litigation. Hearing-fee is assessed at contested scale. Appeals dismissed.