Judgment Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 27.4.2001 and the Award dated 1.5.2001 passed by Sri Baikunth Nath Shahi, 3rd Additional District. Judge-cum- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in M.V. Claim No. 36/99/100/2000 whereby he has been pleased to award compensation to the claimant-respondent to the tune of rupees fifty thousand with interest @ 12% per annum and directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the entire compensation amount. 2. From perusal of the lower courts record, it appears that this claim case was filed for grant of compensation for the death of a minor girl aged about ten years who died in a road accident on 17.12.1998 at about 9.00 A.M. near Koriya Chauk, Begusarai, while she was waiting for her school bus. The vehicle which was involved in the accident had registration No. BR-1P 8645. Further allegation was that the driver of the said vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently, as a result of which, the accident occurred in which the girl Guriya died. It is said that the vehicle was insured under the appellant-Insurance Company. 3. It appears that the claim was contested by the Insurance Company on the ground that the driver of the bus had no valid licence. From the perusal of the judgment of the Tribunal, it transpires that the Tribunal while discussing the evidence adduced by the Insurance Company arrived at the conclusion that there was no substance in the plea of the Opposite Party-Insurance Company that the driving licence of the driver was fake or spurious and, as such, the Tribunal rejected the plea of the appellant-Insurance Company and directed the Company to pay the entire compensation. 4. It has been argued by the learned Advocate of the appellant that the said finding of the tribunal is erroneous in view of the fact that the Insurance Company had brought on record the report of the D.T.O., Gwalior, which showed that the driving licence produced in connection with this case was fake one. 4. It has been argued by the learned Advocate of the appellant that the said finding of the tribunal is erroneous in view of the fact that the Insurance Company had brought on record the report of the D.T.O., Gwalior, which showed that the driving licence produced in connection with this case was fake one. He submitted that the said report has been marked as Exhibit-B. He submitted that since Exhibit-B establishes beyond doubt that the driver, who was driving the vehicle which caused accident, had fake licence and, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have held that the owner of the bus had violated the terms and conditions of the policy and so, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation. To support his argument, the learned Advocate of the appellant has placed reliance upon the decision reported in (1997)7 SCC page 558 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s.Gian Chand and Others). 5. I have gone through para 8 of the judgment of the Tribunal in which the Tribunal has discussed the issue of validity of licence of the driver, from the perusal of which it appears that after discussing the evidence of O.P.W. No.1 Brahamdeo Narayan Prasad and O.P.W. No. 2 Kaushal Kishore Singh, who were formal witnesses, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Exhibit-B was not properly proved and in absence of examination of author of Exhibit-B it cannot be held that the driving licence of the driver was fake or spurious. 6. I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Tribunal is very much correct as neither the author of Exhibit-B was examined nor any register of the office of the D.T.O., Gwalior, was brought on record to establish that on the relevant date no licence was issued to driver of the concerned vehicle. I am further of the view that in absence of proof that the driver had no valid licence it cannot be held that the owner of the bus has violated the terms and conditions of the policy and, as such, the decision relied upon by the learned Advocate of the appellant is not applicable in this case. 7. On the other hand, learned Advocate of the respondents has placed reliance upon the decision reported in II (2003) SLT page 516 [: 2003(2) PLJR (SC) 169] (United India Insurance Co. 7. On the other hand, learned Advocate of the respondents has placed reliance upon the decision reported in II (2003) SLT page 516 [: 2003(2) PLJR (SC) 169] (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s.Lehru & Ors.) in support of his argument that if it is found that the driver had no valid licence even then the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation so far third party is concerned and the proper remedy available to the Insurance Company is that after making payment of entire compensation to the third party the Insurance Company may realise the amount from the owner of the bus. 8. Relying upon the decision referred to above by the learned Advocate of the respondents, I am of the view that in cases where it is found that licence of the driver is not fake the Insurance Company is legally bound to pay the entire compensation amount but in cases where the licence of the driver was found fake the proper course available to the insurance company is that firstly the Company shall pay the entire compensation to the claimants and then it may proceed to realise the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle on proof of (certain facts like the knowledge of the owner regarding the fake licence of the driver. So far this case is concerned, it stands on much better footing as the Insurance Company has failed to prove that the driver had no valid licence. Under such circumstance, it cannot be held that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. I, therefore, hold that the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 9. As regards the quantum of compensation, I find that the learned Tribunal has awarded a very meagre amount towards compensation and, therefore, there is no reasonable ground to reduce or alter the compensation amount. I am further of the view that the rate of interest i.e. 12% per annum, as ordered by the Tribunal, appears to be just and proper in the background of the case and, as such, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal regarding the quantum of compensation or the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. 10. 10. In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal and, as such, the same is hereby dismissed and the judgment and award of the learned Tribunal are hereby upheld. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire compensation amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the application till the date of payment positively within a period of two months from today after deducting the amount already paid, failing which, the claimant will be entitled to recover the amount through the process of the court. It is further observed that the claimant will be entitled to withdraw the statutory amount deposited in the court.