Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal has been preferred by the insurer aggrieved by an award dated 28. 1. 2002 passed by Eighth motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jabalpur in M. V. C. No. 236 of 2000. ( 2. ) THE claimants also preferred Miscellaneous appeal No. 623 of 2002 that has been decided as per order dated 20. 2. 2003 passed by Division Bench of this court enhancing the compensation to Rs. 2,00,000. It was ordered that compensation shall be paid by the insurer. None was present on behalf of the insurer in the appeal, however, as held by this court compensation has been enhanced and recovery was permitted through the insurer. In all fairness, it ought to have been pointed out by the claimants that another appeal filed by the insurer was pending in this court with respect to assailing its liability to make the payment of compensation. However, as this question was not raised while deciding the appeal filed by claimants, there is no bar to hear this appeal to decide the question of liability of insurer in case there was any violation of policy of insurance. ( 3. ) MR. N. S. Ruprah, learned counsel for insurer, has not assailed the question of compensation. His submission is that as the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence, whatever compensation has been determined, should be permitted to be recovered from the owner in case it is recovered from the insurer. He has submitted that insurer had called the driver so as to depose, bailable warrant was also issued but he did not turn up to depose that he was holding any licence. In the circumstances, insurer has examined Y. N. Datta, an Investigator. He has stated that he was appointed by the insurer in the criminal case, driving licence was not seized by the police, he had visited the house of Rajesh rao twice for obtaining driving licence but driving licence was not given to him. Owner refused to handover the driving licence to him. Insurer had also issued a notice, Exh. D2 to Rajesh Rao to produce driving licence and other papers but still driving licence was not produced, thus, insurer could not have been held liable to make payment of compensation. Owner refused to handover the driving licence to him. Insurer had also issued a notice, Exh. D2 to Rajesh Rao to produce driving licence and other papers but still driving licence was not produced, thus, insurer could not have been held liable to make payment of compensation. Liberty ought to have been granted to recover the amount from the owner as per decision of the Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari Begum, 2004 ACJ 1903 (SC ). ( 4. ) MR. Sharad Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has supported the award. He has submitted that in view of the fact that burden was on the insurer that driver was not having valid and effective driving licence, the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal is correct. ( 5. ) THE only question for consideration is whether the driver was holding a valid and effective driving licence? There was a negative burden upon the insurer that stands discharged by the statement of Y. N. Datta, NAW 1, an Investigator, notice was issued by the insurer so as to produce the driving licence which was not produced. Driver was also summoned by the court at the instance of the insurer, warrant was also issued but the driver did not turn up, an adverse inference can be safely drawn against the driver that he was not holding driving licence, that is why he has not produced it nor it was seized by the police in the criminal case. In the absence of photocopy of driving licence being on record, no further evidence could have been adduced by the insurer, in the instant case it is held that driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. I set aside the finding recorded by Claims tribunal that the burden has (sic not) been successfully discharged in the instant case though the burden was on the insurer to prove the fact. ( 6. ) AS the amount has been paid, the submission raised is reasonable that the amount awarded be directed to be recovered from the owner. Liberty is granted in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari begum, 2004 ACJ 1903 (SC ). ( 6. ) AS the amount has been paid, the submission raised is reasonable that the amount awarded be directed to be recovered from the owner. Liberty is granted in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in Pramod Kumar Agrawal v. Mushtari begum, 2004 ACJ 1903 (SC ). In case the amount is recovered from the insurer of the compensation awarded to the claimant, insurer is at liberty to recover it from the insured. ( 7. ) RESULTANTLY, appeal is accordingly allowed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred. Appeal allowed.