JUDGMENT L. MOHAPATRA, J. : This appeal is directed against the judgment/award dated 15.1.2002 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Third M.A.C.T., Jajpur in MAC Case No.14 of 2000. 2. Case of the claimants is that on 27.12.1999 at about 5 p.m. the deceased was going on the left side of the road towards Binjharpur. Near Kapasi Chhak the offending vehicle bearing registration No.OR-05-B-6784 came in high speed and ran over the deceased from back side, as a result of which the deceased sus¬tained severe injuries on his person. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to Jajpur Government Hospital for treatment, but ultimately he succumbed to the injuries. It is specifically alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. At the time of accident it is claimed that the deceased was working as salesman in a private company at Bhubaneswar and was aged about 25 years and was also earning Rs.3500/- per month. The claimants claiming to be defend¬ants of the deceased claimed compensation of Rs.4,80,000/-. The owner as well as the insurance company contested the case by filing written statements separately. The Tribunal framed four issues and found that the offending vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which the accident took place and the deceased died due to injuries sustained in course of the said accident. The Tribunal further found that at the time of accident the vehicle was covered with a valid insurance poli¬cy. In absence of any evidence with regard to employment and income of the deceased prior to the accident, the Tribunal calcu¬lated notional income at Rs.15,000/- per annum and after deduct¬ing 1/3rd compensation, directed payment of compensation of Rs.1,70,000/-. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant challenged the judgment/award on the ground that the policy had been cancelled from the inception and therefore the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. Learned counsel also chal¬lenged the judgment on the ground that the driver of the offend¬ing vehicle was in possession of fake driving licence and there¬fore the insurance company should be permitted to recover the award amount from the owner in case it is found liable for pay¬ment of compensation. Learned counsel also chal¬lenged the judgment on the ground that the driver of the offend¬ing vehicle was in possession of fake driving licence and there¬fore the insurance company should be permitted to recover the award amount from the owner in case it is found liable for pay¬ment of compensation. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that so far as cancellation of policy is concerned, there was neither any specific pleading nor an issue to that effect has been framed. In absence of an issue no evi¬dence was also led and therefore such a question cannot be raised before this Court in appeal for the first time. So far as validi¬ty of the licence is concerned, it was contended by the learned counsel for the claimant-respondents that the seizure list in the G.R. case indicate that the driving licence stood in the name of the driver who was driving the offending vehicle and therefore such a question cannot be raised in appeal. 4. Before I proceed to deal with submissions made by the learned counsel at Bar, I feel it necessary to first deal with the application filed by the appellant for acceptance of addi¬tional evidence. The application for additional evidence has been filed on the ground that upon verification it was found that the driving licence which had been seized by the appellant was issued in the name of Pravakar Nath and not in the name of Baina Mohapatra who was driving the offending vehicle. Considering the issue before this Court, as well as the fact that such an infor¬mation was obtained from the licensing authority, Chandikhole at a later stage said additional evidence is accepted. 5. So far as first ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant is concerned, it appears from the written statement filed by the appellant before Tribunal that no specific plea was taken by the appellant that the policy had been cancelled from the inception. The Tribunal, on the other hand, considering the policy (Ext.12) found that the offending vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy on the date of accident. Plea of cancella¬tion of policy having not been taken before the Tribunal, same cannot be adjudicated for the first time in Appeal. The Tribunal, on the other hand, considering the policy (Ext.12) found that the offending vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy on the date of accident. Plea of cancella¬tion of policy having not been taken before the Tribunal, same cannot be adjudicated for the first time in Appeal. In this connection, reliance is placed by the Court on a decision of this Court in the case of M.A. Razak -v- United India Insurance Compa¬ny Limited and others, reported in Vol.84(1997) CLT 730. I, therefore, do not find any substance in the first ground taken by the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. So far as second ground of challenge is concerned, same relates to validity of the driving licence issued to the appel¬lant. On perusal of the zimanama (Ext.4)it appears that D.L. 603 of 1990 which was valid up to 6.6.2002 had been seized and given in zima. It further appears that the said driving licence stood in the name of Baina Mohapatra who was driving the offending vehicle on the date of accident. As additional evidence a copy of the letter issued by the Licensing Authority, Chandikhole has been produced. In the said intimation it is indicated that the aforesaid driving licence No.603 of 1990-91 had been issued from Chandikhol office, but same had been issued in the name of one Pravakhar Nath. In view of the above, it is clear that the driv¬ing licence seized during investigation is fake one indicating the holder of licence to be Baina Mohapatra, driver of the of¬fending vehicle. I, therefore, hold that the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence on the date of accident. The Apex Court in several cases have al¬ready held that even if driving licence is found to be invalid one, amount of compensation is to be paid by the insurance compa¬ny with a right to cover from the owner of the vehicle. 7. I, therefore, direct that the insurance company shall have the right to recover the award amount from the owner in the manner decided by the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insur¬ance Co. Ltd. -v- Nanjappan and others, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 952 and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. -v- Challa Bharathamma and others, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 5301. Ltd. -v- Nanjappan and others, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 952 and in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. -v- Challa Bharathamma and others, reported in 2004 AIR SCW 5301. Statutory deposit along with accrued interest there on be returned to the learned counsel for the appellant for depositing the entire awarded amount with interest before the Tribunal within a period of two months. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of.