JUDGMENT Hon’ble D.P. Singh, J.—Heard Counsel for the appellant, Sri R.C. Gupta, Counsel for the respondent No. 1 claimant and Sri Rajiv Chaddha, Counsel for the respondent Insurance Company. 2. This First Appeal From Order is directed against an award dated 30th April, 1983 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 81 of 1980 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarnagar awarding Rs. 58,000/- as compensation to the respondent claimant. 3. The claimant, who was aged about 40 years and was engaged in the profession of constructing truck bodies, was walking down the road when he was knocked down by Truck No. USK 9370 belonging to the appellant at about 7 a.m. near Gandhi Colony in Muzaffarnagar. The vehicle ran over his leg crushing it completely and the leg had to be amputated. He preferred the aforesaid claim petition impleading the Insurance Company where the parties filed their respective written statements. The claimant examined atleast three witnesses on his behalf to prove his claim, but neither the Insurance Company nor the appellant owner filed any evidence in rebuttal. 4. The Tribunal having assessed the compensation considered the issue as to who was liable to pay it. It found that the truck was duly registered with the Insurance Company but it was urged on behalf of the Insurance Company that it was being driven in breach of the condition of insurance, inasmuch, as, the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence, it, after relying upon the admission of the owner in his written statement, held that the owner was liable. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that he had been tricked into admitting that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence, even though on the date of the accident his driver, Jaipal possessed a valid driving licence. 6. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has urged that he had been tricked into admitting that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence, even though on the date of the accident his driver, Jaipal possessed a valid driving licence. 6. Alongwith the appeal the appellant has filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27, C.P.C. dated 19th July, 1983 alleging therein that the Insurance Company forbade him from making any statement about the accident in any Court or authority and had got signed a written statement prepared by the Counsel for the Insurance Company which was also filed through him wherein an incorrect statement that the driver did not possess valid driving licence was mentioned, but since he could not understand the English language, he did not know what actually was written in his written statement. It is also alleged that the Insurance Company had got a form filled by him wherein it was clearly mentioned that the driver had a valid driving licence and the number of the licence and its period of validity was also mentioned. After the delivery of the judgment, he came to know about the aforesaid fraudulent act of the Insurance Company and thereafter he applied for a certificate from the Licensing Authority, Muzaffarnagar which was given to him on 6th of May, 1983 showing that the licence was valid from 21st November, 1978 to 20th November, 1981 and he annexed the copies of the form and certificate of the Licensing Authority. These averments have not been denied even after expiry of more than 25 years. The story given by the appellant appears to be correct considering the fact that normally, no owner will file a written statement admitting that his vehicle was being operated by a person who did not possess a valid driving licence. It may be noted that the appellant duly disclosed the name of the driver in the form filled by him as provided by the Insurance Company and also mentioned the validity of his driving licence. The name of the driver also finds mention in the first information report and also in the statement of the witness examined on behalf of the claimant. The allegations made in the application have not been rebutted. Thus, it is evident that the driver of the vehicle did possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 7. The name of the driver also finds mention in the first information report and also in the statement of the witness examined on behalf of the claimant. The allegations made in the application have not been rebutted. Thus, it is evident that the driver of the vehicle did possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 7. However, learned Counsel for the Insurance Company seeks indulgence to verify the authenticity of the certificate filed by the appellant. At this belated stage the Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence, specially in view of the fact that the Insurance Company has duped an illiterate man who has been saddled with compensation. 8. No argument has been raised by either of the parties with regard to negligence and quantum of sentence. 9. In view of the discussions hereinabove, the appeal succeeds and is allowed to the aforesaid extent. The claimant shall be entitled to recover the amount as assessed by the Tribunal from the Insurance Company together with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date it is actually paid. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount as aforesaid before the Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarnagar within a period of 45 days from today, failing which the claimant shall be entitled to enhanced interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of actual payment. Any amount deposited or paid by the owner shall be made good from the amount so deposited and paid by the Insurance Company. The claimant shall also be entitled to his costs throughout. ————