1. The judgment dated 20.3.1999 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S.(MAC) 237 of 1994 awarding Rs. 1,77,000 as compensation for the death of one Suren Debbarma stands impugned in the present appeal filed by the insurer. 2. I have heard DK Biswas, learned counsel for the appellant insurer and Mr. A.C. Bhowmik learned counsel for the respondents. 3. Regarding the maintainability of such an appeal by the insurer, it has been submitted that after the award was passed, it came to the notice of the insurer that the licence in favour of the driver of the insured vehicle, which was involved in the accident causing the death of Suren Debbarma was a fake licence and such a revelation prompted the insurer to file the present appeal. According to the insurer, the ground that a person without having a licence was driving the vehicle at the time of accident is a ground falling within section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which confers a right upon the insurer to file an appeal. 4. The brief fact of the accident may be looked into. On 3.9.1994 deceased was travelling to Jampuijala from Champaknagar on a motorcycle, which was knocked down by the offending vehicle TRT-1418. With the grievous injuries sustained by him Suren was shifted to the GB Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries on 5.9.1994. His mother, widow and daughter filed the petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000. After recording evidence during the trial learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,77,000. The insurer contested the claim by filing a written statement wherein no contention regarding fake licence was raised. The owner of the vehicle did not contest the claim by filing any written statement. It has been averred in the memo of appeal that after the award the insurer was processing for making the payment and at that time the information was received that the licence of the driver of the said vehicle was fake. The letter dated 8.4.1999 by one Surajit Chakraborty, Investigator addressed to the Branch Manager of the insurer recorded that Driving" Licence No. 5289/UDP of Shri Bimal Ch. Shil was fake one as the District Transport Officer, South Tripura, Udaipur stated that the said driving licence was not genuine: Copy of the letter dated 7.4.1999 of the District Transport Officer was also enclosed with that letter. Shil was fake one as the District Transport Officer, South Tripura, Udaipur stated that the said driving licence was not genuine: Copy of the letter dated 7.4.1999 of the District Transport Officer was also enclosed with that letter. These two letters go to prove to the extent that the driving licence No. 5289 of one Bimal Ch. Shil was not genuine. From these documents, it is not possible to take a view that Bimal Ch. Shil was driving the vehicle involved in the accident on the strength of the said licence. In the materials on record including the pleadings and depositions, there is nothing to show that said Bimal Ch. Shil was driving the vehicle under the Licence No. 5289. It may be noticed that the name of the driver given in the claim petition is Bimal Shil, S/o. Sri Arjun Shil of Jumpuijala Bazar. The letter of the District Transport Officer states that Bimal Ch. Shil was not issued from his office the Driving Licence No. 5289. No evidence is available whether Bimal Shil, S/o. Arjun Shil and Bimal Ch. Shil are one and same person. There is no averment in the written statement that the owner of the vehicle knowing that the driver did not have any genuine driving licence allowed him to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. 5. The factual position noted above, may now be placed on the anvil of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarah Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 . The relevant part of the judgment contained in paras 31, 64, 75 and 84 sire gainfully quoted below : - "An accident may take place for a variety of reasons. The driver of a vehicle may not have a hand in it. He may not be found to be negligent in a given case. Other factors such as unforeseen situation, negligence of the victim, bad road or the action or inaction of any other person may lead to an accident. There may be a case where an accident takes place without there being fault on the part of the driver. He may not be found to be negligent in a given case. Other factors such as unforeseen situation, negligence of the victim, bad road or the action or inaction of any other person may lead to an accident. There may be a case where an accident takes place without there being fault on the part of the driver. In such an event, the question as to whether a driver was holding a valid licence or not would become redundant."[Paras 31 and 64] "The owner of a motor vehicle in terms of section 5 of the Act has a responsibility to see that no vehicle is driven except by a person who does not satisfy the provisions of section 3 or 4 of the Act. In a case, therefore, where the driver of the vehicle, admittedly, did not hold any licence and the same was allowed consciously to be driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person, the insurer is entitled to succeed in its defence and avoid liability. The matter, however may be different where a disputed question of fact arises as to whether the driver had a valid licence or where the owner of the vehicle committed a breach of the terms of the contract of insurance as also the provisions of the Act by consciously allowing any person to drive a vehicle who did not nave a valid driving licence. In a given case, the driver of the vehicle may not have any hand in the accident at all e.g. a case where an accident takes place owing to a mechanical fault or vis major. "[Paras 84 and 75] 6. From the above principle, it would appear that in the case at hand it is not enough for the insurer to show that the driver had a fake licence. It is also the duty of the insurer to prove that the owner of the vehicle knowing well that the licence was a fake one allowed the driver to drive the vehicle at the relevant time and that the accident had taken place due to fault of that driver. As noticed above, the insurer failed to show that the two names belong to same driver and he was driving the vehicle allegedly with the fake licence stated by the District Transport Officer. As noticed above, the insurer failed to show that the two names belong to same driver and he was driving the vehicle allegedly with the fake licence stated by the District Transport Officer. That apart, it has not been pleaded and proved that the owner of the vehicle knowing fully well that the said driver had a fake licence allowed him to drive the vehicle at the relevant time. 7. The factual position, if placed on the above anvils, would show that the appeal filed by the appellant herein on the basis of subsequent knowledge about the licence does not merit further inquiry and, therefore, the same being not sustainable in law is hereby dismissed.