L. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 28. 12. 2002 passed by the learned Member, second M. A. C. T. (S. D.), Berhampur in m. A. C. No. 424 of 2000 (632 of 1999)directing the appellant to pay compensation of Rs. 6,35,000 with interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. ( 2 ) IN course of hearing of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant raised three issues, namely, liability of the insurance company to pay compensation in a case where driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle is found to be fake, quantum of compensation directed to be paid as well as the rate of interest granted by the Tribunal. After hearing the learned counsel for both parties for some time, the court suggested for a compromise and on instruction learned counsel appearing for both parties agreed upon the quantum of compensation, as well as interest to be paid thereon. So far as liability of the insurance company is concerned, learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that as per decision of the Apex court, the insurance company should be given liberty to recover the award amount from the insured. ( 3 ) IN view of the above it is only necessary for this court to decide the question as to whether driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was a fake one or not. This question has been dealt with by the Tribunal in issue No. 3. On verification of the records it is found that the police papers, such as seizure list and charge-sheet marked Exhs. 6 and 9 respectively disclose that Nilamber Swain, driver of the offending vehicle was holding driving licence No. 816 of 1989 and the same was valid up to 29. 4. 2001. Appellant proved that the certified copy of the said driving licence which indicates that it had been issued from the office of the Licensing Authority, ganjam basing upon the original driving licence No. 88 of 1984 issued from the Licensing Authority, Koraput as well as driving licence No. 42 of 1987 issued from the office of the Licensing Authority, kalahandi. Certified copy of the driving licence No. 88 of 1984 issued from the Licensing authority, Koraput is in the name of the said driver. Certified copy of the driving licence No. 88 of 1984 issued from the Licensing authority, Koraput is in the name of the said driver. However, the certified copy of the driving licence No. 42 of 1987, exh. D, was issued from the office of the licensing Authority, Kalahandi was in the name of Bhagaban Bhoi. Tribunal though considered this aspect of the contention of the appellant found that since the driving licence issued from Licensing Authority, koraput which is the basis for issuance of driving licence No. 816 of 1989 was in the name of driver of the offending vehicle, nilamber Swain, the insurance company is liable to pay compensation. It appears that the Tribunal lost sight of the fact that there cannot be two original driving licences issued by different authorities in the name of same person. The seized driving licence clearly indicates that the same had been issued on the basis of the two original licences issued by two different authorities from two different districts. In view of the above, grave doubt arise as to whether driver of the offending vehicle was holding valid licence or not. I am, therefore, of the view that the insurance company should be permitted to recover the award amount from the insured in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan, 2004 acj 721 (SC) and in the case of National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharath-amma, 2004 ACJ 2094 (SC ). ( 4 ) NOW coming to the question of quantum of compensation as well as the rate of interest to be paid thereon, both the parties agree that compensation be reduced from rs. 6,35,000 to Rs. 5,85,000 and the rate of interest be reduced from 8 per cent to 7 per cent. ( 5 ) IT is, therefore, directed that appellant shall be liable to pay compensation of rs. 5,85,000 to the claimants-respondents with interest at 7 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. Said amount be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of two months. It is further directed that appellant shall have right to recover the award amount from the insured in terms of the judgment of Apex Court in the above two cases. Said amount be deposited before the Tribunal within a period of two months. It is further directed that appellant shall have right to recover the award amount from the insured in terms of the judgment of Apex Court in the above two cases. It is further directed that in the event the insured fails to furnish security and attachment of the property is not done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of records from this court by Claims Tribunal, the award amount shall be released in favour of the claimants-respondents, but the appellant shall be permitted to proceed with recovery of said amount from the insured in the proceeding before the Claims Tribunal. The M. A. C. A. is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of the order be granted on proper application. Appeal allowed.