Judgment : BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. (1). THIS first appeal is at the instance of the General Manager, Orissa State road Transport Corporation, the owner of the one of the vehicles involved in the accident and is directed against the award dated 10th September, 1996 passed by the Additional District Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Midnapore in m. A. C. Case No. 189 of 1993 thereby allowing an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act filed by the respondent by directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs. 5,00,000. 00 to the claimant as compensation for the permanent disablement caused to him. (2). THE case made out by the claimant was that on 13th October, 1992, while he was coming from Keonjhar, Orissa to Calcutta for his business work on a bus owned by the appellant, at about 3:30 hrs. on 14th October, 1992, it met with an accident on the National Highway-6 with a truck, being No. AMU 1562, coming from the opposite direction. According to the claimant, both the bus and the truck were running at a high speed and due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the both, the bus and the truck, the accident occurred, as a result, the claimant sustained head injuries. He was taken to various hospitals and nursing homes in course of next few months and the damaged frontal portion of the bone of the head of the claimant had been removed resulting in permanent disablement. (3). IN the claim-application, both the owner of the vehicles and the insurer of the truck were made parties. The suit was contested by the appellant and the Insurer of the truck but the owner of the truck did not contest the proceedings. (4). AT the time of hearing, the claimant examined seven witnesses including himself in support of his claim while an employee of the appellant and that of the insurance Company deposed in opposing the claim of the claimants. (5). THE claimant produced various documents showing his disability as well as the expenditure incurred by him for his treatment. On behalf of the appellant, the F.I.R., Final Report and Seizure Lists were marked as exhibits. The claimant also examined the Investigating Officer who gave the final report in the criminal proceedings. (6). (5). THE claimant produced various documents showing his disability as well as the expenditure incurred by him for his treatment. On behalf of the appellant, the F.I.R., Final Report and Seizure Lists were marked as exhibits. The claimant also examined the Investigating Officer who gave the final report in the criminal proceedings. (6). AS indicated earlier, the learned Tribunal below held that the bus on which the claimant was travelling was running at a high speed and due to negligent driving on the part of its driver the accident occurred. The learned tribunal further arrived at the conclusion that cost of treatment was more than Rs. 50,000/-and the petitioner had faced permanent disablement due to the injuries received on his forehead. Ultimately, after taking into consideration on the materials on record, the Tribunal below concluded that this was a fit case where Rs. 5,00,000/-should be paid to the claimant as compensation and such amount should be paid by the owner of the bus. (7). BEING dissatisfied, the owner of the bus has come up with the present appeal. In this appeal, the Insurance Company and the owner of the truck in question were made parties but in spite of service of notice, none appeared on behalf of either the Insurance Company or the owner of the truck. (8). THE learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, at the very outset, submitted that he had nothing to say about the quantum of compensation nor was he disputing the fact that the claimant was a passenger of the bus owned by his client. His specific grievance is that the learned Tribunal below erred in law in totally overlooking the contents of Exbts.- A, B and C which would indicate that it was the driver of the truck running from the opposite direction who was responsible for the accident and that the driver of the bus owned by his client had no fault. By pointing out to the final report submitted in the concerned criminal case, he submits that it appears that the truck was being driven by a khalashi who died on the spot and the driver, whose driving licence was seized from the truck, was subsequently arrested but he was discharged as he was not driving the vehicle at the relevant point of time. It appears from the report that from the truck, the driving licence of a driver was recovered but the person who was actually driving the truck had no driving licence and that he was a khalashi of the vehicle who died instantaneously. It further appears that a particular Insurance Certificate valid up to 3rd June, 1993 was seized subsequently on 15th October, 1992. (9). BY referring to the abovementioned documents, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that it has been at least well established that it was the driver of the truck who was responsible for the accident as he had no driving licence and the truck dashed the right side of the bus indicating that the Bus was not on the wrong side. (10). AFTER going through the final report given in the proceeding, we find that the truck driver who died was one Habilder Yadav and the person whose driving licence was seized was Hanuman Yadav by name who subsequently surrendered at the police station. The said Hanuman Yadav, however, was discharged, as he was not actually driving the car. (11). AS, in spite of all these materials, the owner of the truck did not come forward to dispute the allegation that a Khalasi was driving the truck, we are convinced that it was the driver of the truck having no driving licence was responsible for the accident. According to the Motor Vehicles Rules, even a person having a learner licence is not permitted to drive without the assistance of a person having a valid driving licence sitting beside him; but in this case, a person having no driving licence at all was entrusted with the truck to drive at the National Highway at the dead of night. (12). THE Tribunal below erred in holding that the driver of the bus owned by the appellant was responsible. In arriving at such conclusion, the Tribunal below totally overlooked the Exbts-A, B and C. (13). ONCE we hold that the truck was responsible for the accident, this appeal should succeed to the extent that no amount should be directed to be paid by the appellant. (14). NEVERTHELESS, the question remains whether the truck was insured by the Insurance Company. It appears from record that the Insurance Company denied its liability alleging that the truck concerned was not insured by the company. (14). NEVERTHELESS, the question remains whether the truck was insured by the Insurance Company. It appears from record that the Insurance Company denied its liability alleging that the truck concerned was not insured by the company. An application was also filed for direction upon the owner of the truck to produce the certificate but such application was not disposed of by the tribunal and without disposing of the said application, the Tribunal proceeded to conclude the matter by holding the owner of the bus liable. (15). IN our view, it was the duty of the Tribunal to dispose of such application by giving a direction upon the owner of the vehicle to produce the certificate when it appears from the final report that there is an Insurance Certificate of the involved truck, which was valid till June 3, 1993 whereas the accident occurred in the month of October, 1992. (16). WE, therefore, set aside the award by holding that the driver of the truck was responsible for the accident and consequently, the owner of the truck is liable to pay compensation unless it is established that the truck was validly insured at the time of accident. We, however, affirm the finding of the Tribunal below that Rs. 5,00,000. 00 was payable as compensation to the claimant but for deciding whether the truck was at the relevant point of time covered by the insurance, we remand the matter back to the Tribunal for giving opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence for enabling the Tribunal to come to the conclusion whether at the relevant point of time, the truck was covered by a valid insurance. Parties will be entitled to lead further evidence and may call for the seized articles for proving existence of a valid insurance. On further hearing if it is found that the vehicle was covered by the insurance, the Tribunal below will fix the responsibility upon the Insurance Company otherwise the amount will be payable by the owner of the truck. The Tribunal below is directed to pass fresh decision on the aforesaid question. Since we have held that the appellant had no liability, the amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to the direction of this court earlier may be withdrawn by them. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. (17). The Tribunal below is directed to pass fresh decision on the aforesaid question. Since we have held that the appellant had no liability, the amount deposited by the appellant pursuant to the direction of this court earlier may be withdrawn by them. The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. (17). SINCE the matter is pending for a long time, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the proceedings within three months from the receipt of the records from this Court. The office will see that the records arrive at the Tribunal by march 31, 2008. In the facts and circumstances, there will be, however, no order as to costs.