JUDGMENT J.C.S. Rawat, J. 1. Since the above appeals are arising out of the same accident of Vehicle (Jeep) No. U.P. -06/319 dated 30-08-2002 and involve the same questions of fact and law, therefore, the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. A.O. No. 631 of 2006, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dated 19-07-2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal') in MAC. No. 54/2005 Shri Sandeep Kumar Vs. Vinod Singh and another, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,46,500/- as compensation against the appellant- the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount of compensation within two months from the date of award. In default of payment, the claimant would be entitled for interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition upto the date of payment. 3. The claimant Sandeep Singh has also filed A.O. No. 764 of 2006 for the enhancement of the award dated 19-07-2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/ District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in MAC. No. 54/2005 Shri Sandeep Kumar Vs. Vinod Singh and another, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,46,500/- as compensation against the insurer- The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 4. A.O. No. 532 of 2005, under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dated 05-10-2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in MAC. No. 02/2003 Shri Ram Singh Negi and others Vs. Vinod Singh and others, whereby the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 3,36,000/- as compensation against the appellant- the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. The Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount of compensation within two months from the date of award. In default of payment, the claimant would be entitled for interest thereon @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition upto the date of payment. 5. Brief facts of A.O. No. 631 of 2006 (MAC. No. 54 of 2005) are that the claimant injured had filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 5. Brief facts of A.O. No. 631 of 2006 (MAC. No. 54 of 2005) are that the claimant injured had filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs alleging therein that on 30-08-2002 at about 7:00 p.m. the claimant was travelling in (Jeep) Vehicle No. UP. 06/319 from Chelusain to Dwarikhal. The Vehicle met with an accident in which the claimant suffered grievous injuries on his person. Due to the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident, his right hand became 65% disabled. It was alleged that the claimant had incurred Rs. 3 lakhs towards his medical treatment. It was further alleged that the claimant injured was 16 years of age at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 6,000/- per month from agriculture. Thus, the claimant-injured had filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 6 lakhs. 6. Brief facts of A.O. No. 532 of 2005 (MAC. No. 02 of 2003) are that the claimants had filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal for compensation of Rs. 9 lakhs for the death of Satyaveer Singh alleging therein that on 30-08-2002 at about 7:00 p.m. the deceased was travelling in Vehicle (Jeep) No. U.P. 06/319. Due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle, the vehicle met with an accident resulting in grievous injuries to Satyaveer Singh who succumbed to his injuries on 29-10-2002. It was alleged that the claimants had incurred Rs. 1.12 lakhs towards medical treatment. It was further alleged that the deceased was 19 years of age at the time of accident and was earning Rs. 2,000/- per month from agriculture. Thus, the claimants had filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 9 lakhs. 7. The opposite parties filed their written statements and contested the case. The owner of the vehicle Vinod Singh in his written statement pleaded that the driver of the vehicle was having a valid driving licence and documents at the time of accident. The owner pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, as such, the liability to pay compensation, if any, would be of Insurance Company. The Insurance Company, in its written statement denied the averment made in the claim petition. It was pleaded that the claimants were not the bonafide passengers. The owner pleaded that the vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, as such, the liability to pay compensation, if any, would be of Insurance Company. The Insurance Company, in its written statement denied the averment made in the claim petition. It was pleaded that the claimants were not the bonafide passengers. It was pleaded that the accident did not occur due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle but it occurred due to some mechanic defects. It was further pleaded that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid driving licence and other relevant documents at the time of the accident. 8. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed necessar issues and ultimately, the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion in A.O. No. 631 ( 2006 (MAC. No. 54 of 2005) that the injured Sandeep Singh sustained the injuries in the accident on 30-08-2002; the vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited at the time of the accident; the injured became 65% disabled on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident and the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimant-injured to the tune of Rs. 1,46, 500/- 9. 'In A.O. No. 532 of 2005 (MAC. No. 02 of 2003), the learned Tribunal framed necessary issues and ultimately, the learned Tribunal had come to the conclusion that the deceased died in the accident on 30-08-2002 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver c the vehicle; the vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited at the time of the accident; and the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased as 19 years at the time of the accident. The Tribunal assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 36,000/-. By multiply in the annual dependency of Rs. 36,000/- with the multiplier of '16', it worked out to Rs. 5,76,000 -. By deducting 1/3 towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants dependence was assessed at Rs. 3,84,000/-. The Tribunal deducted 1/3 of Rs. 3,84,000/- on the ground that the claimants were getting a lump sum amount at one time and the compensation was worked out to Rs. 2,56,000/-. The Tribunal had further awarded Rs. 80,000/- towards of the heads. By deducting 1/3 towards the personal expenses of the deceased, the claimants dependence was assessed at Rs. 3,84,000/-. The Tribunal deducted 1/3 of Rs. 3,84,000/- on the ground that the claimants were getting a lump sum amount at one time and the compensation was worked out to Rs. 2,56,000/-. The Tribunal had further awarded Rs. 80,000/- towards of the heads. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 3,36,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants for the death of Satyaveer Singh in the motor accident against the Insurance Company. 10. Feeling aggrieved by the impugned awards, the insurer and claimants have preferred the present appeals. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company in A.O. No. 631 of 2006 (MAC No. 54 of 2005) contended that learned Tribunal had awarded the compensation on the higher side. It was contended that the learned Tribunal had erred in relying upon the photocopy of the disability certificate filed by the claimant before the Tribunal. It was further contended that the disability certificate reveals 65% disability to the claimant, but no doctor was examined to prove the disability certificate and the medical bills submitted by the claimant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimant supported the judgment and contended that the amoun1 of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is a meager amount. It was further contended that the claimant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- as compensation. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in Kashmir Singh Vs. Santosh Singh Patiner and another reported in 2006 (2) U.D., 693. 13. The claimant had adduced the evidence in support of the claim petition. It is true that no doctor had been examined before the learned Tribunal to prove the contents of disability certificate. It is also true that original of the said disability certificate had not been filed by the claimant before the learned Tribunal. 14. It is well settled position of law that mere filling of the photocopy of the original document is not sufficient to prove the contents of the document. The claimant should have filed the original disability certificate before the learned Tribunal. 14. It is well settled position of law that mere filling of the photocopy of the original document is not sufficient to prove the contents of the document. The claimant should have filed the original disability certificate before the learned Tribunal. He should have called the doctor before the learned Tribunal so that his statement could have been recorded and the veracity of the contents of the document made in the said document could be proved. This Court had already discussed this aspect in detail in Kashmir Singh (Supra) by relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in A.P. SRTC Vs. P. Thirupal R-eddy 2005 (12) SCC 189. The learned Tribunal had already awarded the compensation to the claimant on the ground of disability. If this Court proceeds to examine the doctor and direct the claimants to produce the original disability certificate and if any order is passed against the parties to the claim petition after appreciation of such evidence, the parties would be deprived of their right of first appeal against the said finding. 15. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company in both the appeals, i.e. A.O. No. 631 of 2006 (MAC. No. 54 of 2005) and A.a. No. 532 of 2005 (MAC. No. 02/2003) contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the driver of the vehicle in question was Shri Gabar Singh and not Shri Dhirender Singh. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the learned Tribunal also erred in relying upon the photocopy of the driving licence filed by the claimants and that too of one Shri Dhirender Singh S/o Shri Mohan Singh. It was further contended that the Tribunal has wrongly placed reliance upon the photocopy of the driving licence, completely overlooking the fact that as per the F.I.R. the driver of the vehicle was Shri Gabar Singh and the chargesheet was also submitted against Shri Gabar Singh. 16. Perusal of the F.I.R. discloses that Gabar Singh was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. The said F.I.R. has been lodged by the owner of the vehicle Vinod Singh himself. Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle Vinod Singh could not show us that original driving licence of any of the driver has been filed in these claim petitions. The said F.I.R. has been lodged by the owner of the vehicle Vinod Singh himself. Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle Vinod Singh could not show us that original driving licence of any of the driver has been filed in these claim petitions. The owner of the vehicle Vinod Singh has filed photocopy of the driving licence of Dhirender Singh in A.O. No.631 of 2006 (MAC. No. 54 of 2005). Learned counsel for the 1nsurance Company contended that the driver of the alleged vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The F.I.R., which was lodged by the owner himself, contains this fact that Shri Gabar Singh was driving the vehicle. Thus, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that Dhirender Singh was the driver of the vehicle. The driver of the vehicle has not been arrayed as a party. The Tribunal should have framed the issue in this regard as to who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident so that the parties could have led the evidence in this regard. If this Court proceeds to examine the driver and direct the claimants to examine the driver who was driving the vehicle and if any order is passed against the parties to the claim petition after appreciation of such evidence, the parties would be deprived of their right of first appeal against the said finding. 17. It is also pertinent that the claimant has neither made the driver of the offending vehicle a party to the claim petition nor he had disclosed his name in the report anywhere in the claim petition. The driver of the vehicle is a necessary party to the claim petition. The main 'tort feasor' is the driver. The claimant is entitled only to get the compensation u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act when the driver 'tort feasor' of the vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The owners are vicariously liable for the acts of their servants, i.e. drivers. The master becomes liable for the conduct of the servant when the servant is proved to have acted negligently in the course of the employment. The master is liable for the acts of his servant and the negligence of his servant. The compensation is awarded against the owner only on the ground of vicarious liability. The master becomes liable for the conduct of the servant when the servant is proved to have acted negligently in the course of the employment. The master is liable for the acts of his servant and the negligence of his servant. The compensation is awarded against the owner only on the ground of vicarious liability. The Insurance Companies are liable to pay the compensation on behalf of the owner of the vehicle as they have insured the offending vehicle with them and had entered into the contract to pay the compensation. Thus the driver being the 'tort feasor' is a necessary party to the claim petition. The Motor Vehicles Act also casts a duty upon the owner or Incharge of the vehicle to furnish the information as to who was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. If the claimant was not aware of the name of the driver, the court may insist to the owner to furnish the name of the driver to the court. The Division Sench of this Court has already discussed this aspect in A.O. No. 423 of 2005, Bhupendra Singh Bora Vs. Diwan Singh Bora and another decided on 6th December, 2006. 18. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be just and proper to set aside the award dated 19-07-2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in MAC. No. 54/2005 & award dated 05-10-2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal District Judge, Pauri Garhwal in MAC. No. 02/2003 and remand the matter to the learned Tribunal for the hearing of the case. The Tribunal will provide the opportunity to the parties to adduce their evidence before the Tribunal in support of their pleadings. 19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned awards are set aside. The matters are remanded back to the learned Tribunal with the direction to dispose of the claim petitions in the light of the observation made above expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the record. The amount, if any, deposited by the Insurance Company before the M.A.C.T. concerned shall be adjusted at the time of final disposal of the claim petitions. The Registry is directed to release the amount of Rs. The amount, if any, deposited by the Insurance Company before the M.A.C.T. concerned shall be adjusted at the time of final disposal of the claim petitions. The Registry is directed to release the amount of Rs. 25,000/ - each deposited as mandatory deposit in A.O. No. 532/2005 and A.O. No. 631/2006 in favour of the Insurance Company immediately. 20. In view of the above, all the aforesaid appeals are disposed of accordingly. 21. No order as to costs.