JUDGMENT This appeal has been preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (in short the Act) against the judgment and Award dated 6-5-2002 passed in M.A.C. Case No.2 of 2000. Vijendra Singh & others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another, by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chamoli (in short the Tribunal), whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the claim petition and has awarded Rs. 4,75,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum, as mentioned in the impugned order, in favour of the claimant-respondents against the O.P. No. 1-appeliant under Section 166 of the Act. Aggrieved, the Insurance Company-appellant has come up in appeal for setting aside the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal mainly on the ground that the driver of the vehicle Involved in the accident was not holding a driving licence and that the quantum of compensation is excessive and the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence on record. 2. Brief facts of the case are that Head Const. Mal Dei sustained grievous injuries and died in a motor accident on 21-11-1999 involving Jeep No. UGA-7429, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said Jeep. Hence the claim petition has been filed by her dependents/legal heirs. O.P. No.1-appellant contest the claim petition by filing its written statement contending that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence and there were no valid papers in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident. The O.P. No.2 owner of the Jeep filed written statement and asserted that he has possessed all valid papers in respect of the vehicle in question and the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant, therefore, the Insurance Company Is liable to pay compensation. 3. Learned Tribunal framed as many as four issues in the case. Ultimately, the Tribunal has held that the motor accident resulting into Injuries and consequent death of the deceased was caused due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the ill-fated Jeep. It has further been held that the owner was holding all necessary valid papers in respect of the Jeep and the driver was holding a valid driving licence. Finally, it has also been held that the claimants are entitled to get compensation worth Rs. It has further been held that the owner was holding all necessary valid papers in respect of the Jeep and the driver was holding a valid driving licence. Finally, it has also been held that the claimants are entitled to get compensation worth Rs. 4,75,000/- for the death of the deceased and accordingly, the claim petition has been decreed along with Interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the claimants against the O.P. No.1-appellant, as mentioned in the impugned order. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. D.S. Patni, as well as learned counsel for the claimant-respondents, Mr. Pankaj Purohit, and have carefully gone through the entire material on record including the impugned judgment and award. 5. It has been vehemently argued on behalf of the appellant that the driver of the Jeep involved in the accident was not holding .a driving licence on the date of the accident and the copy of the driving licence filed before the learned Tribunal clearly shows that there is overwriting In respect of the period of validity of the driving licence. It has also been submitted before us that the learned Tribunal has not recorded any finding to the effect that from which date the driving licence was effective. Dur attention has been drawn to Annexure-l and Annexure-3 to this appeal. It has, therefore, been submitted that in fact the driver of the Jeep Involved in the accident was not having a driving licence on the date of accident, which took place on 21-11-1999, whereas the driving licence was valid for the period 1-12-1999 to 30-12-2012. We have considered the entire material available on this point. From a perusal of the record, we find that there is some force in the argument of the learned Counsel regarding dispute about the validity of the driving licence. Annexure-3 purports to be the particulars of D.L. No. 5898/P/99 In respect of driving licence of Dalbeer Singh, whose date of birth is 20-8-62. There is statement on oath of D.W.2 Jagdish Prasad Gairola, Junior Clerk of the office of Assistant R.T.O., Pauri Garhwal, who has been produced as witness on behalf of the Insurance Company-appellant. This witness has stated that thro alleged driving licence of the driver, i.e. D.L. No. 5898/P/99, was effective from 1-12-99 to 30-12-2012. There is statement on oath of D.W.2 Jagdish Prasad Gairola, Junior Clerk of the office of Assistant R.T.O., Pauri Garhwal, who has been produced as witness on behalf of the Insurance Company-appellant. This witness has stated that thro alleged driving licence of the driver, i.e. D.L. No. 5898/P/99, was effective from 1-12-99 to 30-12-2012. We also find that the learned Tribunal has not discussed the testimony of this witness in detail in the Impugned judgment. Therefore, In view of the observations made 'In paragraph 110 (Summary ~f Findings) of the judgment of the Apex Court In the case of "National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others"* (2004(3), Supreme Court Cases, 297), It is a fit case in which the appellant-Insurance Company may be permitted to file objections for redressal of its grievances, about the dispute between the insurer and the Insured before ‘the executing Court/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned, after satisfying the entire amount under the impugned award before the Tribunal. The Tribunal after affording opportunity of bearing to the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle, Dalbeer Singh, (respondent no. 3) shall decide the point in respect of validity of the driving licence and its effect In accordance with the provisions of the Act. 6. With the observations aforementioned, the appeal is disposed of finally. No order as to costs. 7. The amount in deposit with this Court be remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned, for being paid to the claimants.