Judgment : These appeals are preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Attingal, in OP(MV) 722/97. M.A.C.A. No. 227/04 is filed by the Insurance Company and M.A.C.A. No. 3/06 is filed by the owner of the car, who is the 1st respondent in the claim application. There was a collision between an auto and the car. The claimant sustained injuries in the accident. The Tribunal found that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the car driver. It also found that 1st respondent is the owner, 4th respondent is the driver and 5th respondent is the Insurance Company and therefore directed R1, R4 and R5 to pay the compensation. 2. Aggrieved by that decision, the Insurance Company has challenged the award on the ground that the driver was not having a valid driving licence to drive the car and therefore there was a breach of policy conditions and that atleast the Tribunal should have given the order of reimbursement from the owner of the vehicle. On the other hand, the owner would contend that there was an effective valid driving licence in favour of the 4th respondent in the claim application and it has been proved by the charge sheet and therefore, the Tribunal was just in directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount. The owner has challenged the award on the question of negligence and quantum. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for all. Let me first consider about the contention of the Insurance Company. Insurance Company would contend that though the vehicle was insured with it, the driver who had driven the car did not have an effective valid driving licence, as contemplated under the provisions of the Act, and it amounted to fundamental breach of policy conditions and therefore, it is not liable to pay the compensation or atleast the Tribunal should have granted an order of reimbursement from the owner of the vehicle. 4. Learned counsel for the owner would contend that a perusal of the charge sheet in the case would reveal that there was an effective valid driving licence for the driver and therefore the contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the owner would contend that a perusal of the charge sheet in the case would reveal that there was an effective valid driving licence for the driver and therefore the contention of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. 5. The Tribunal perused the documents produced from the Regional Transport Authority which indicated that the licence was renewed only up to a period of 1974, whereas the accident had taken place in 1997 and that there is a possibility of the driver renewing the licence from some other Regional Transport Authority and the Insurance Company should have taken steps to find it out and in the absence of the same, it held against the Insurance Company. 6. I am afraid that such a proposition would amount to serious difficulties in different administration by the Insurance Companies. The Insurance Company cannot be directed to run around the whole country and to prove that subsequent to 1974 the licence had not been renewed in any other office. When a person is the driver of the vehicle, he will be in possession of original of the licence and it is the duty of the owner to find out whether the person who is entrusted with the task to drive the vehicle is having a proper valid driving licence on the date of the accident. One cannot arbitrarily put the entire burden on the the Insurance Company and hold that the Insurance Company has not proved and therefore it is not liable. The things would have been different if the Insurance Company had not taken any steps at all. In this case the Insurance Company took the pains of getting an extract from the authority and it was produced before the court. The court instead of relying upon that document just hold that the Insurance Company would have proved whether it was further renewed or not. Such an approach is erroneous and therefore that finding is vacated. 7. Learned counsel for the owner would contend that the charge sheet reveals that there is a valid driving licence. If the driver whose licence is in dispute, the owner can make the driver to produce the licence or he can summon the authorities to produce the licence which will indicate that it has been renewed. If there is really a valid driving licence, one should not penalise the owner for compensation. If the driver whose licence is in dispute, the owner can make the driver to produce the licence or he can summon the authorities to produce the licence which will indicate that it has been renewed. If there is really a valid driving licence, one should not penalise the owner for compensation. So I am inclined to give an opportunity. 8. The next question is regarding the appeal filed by the owner. The owner has challenged the quantum as well as the question of negligence. So far as negligence aspect is concerned, I find the Tribunal has considered the matter elaborately and had arrived at a decision that the accident took place only on account of the negligence of the car driver. I do not propose to interfere with that decision. But, so far as the quantum is concerned, it is submitted that even in the absence of disability certificate the Tribunal has awarded compensation for disability. It is true that in all cases the court need not insist for the production of a disability certificate. Since the matter is going back, I feel that the contention of the owner regarding the quantum of compensation also can be considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration of the matter and to decide the following: .(i) The Tribunal shall decide whether there was an effective valid driving licence for the driver of the car on the date of the accident and for the purpose, the owner and driver are permitted to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. .(ii) The owner is also permitted to let in evidence regarding the quantum of compensation that has to be awarded in the case. (iii) The Tribunal shall thereafter decide the question of liability as well as quantum and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. (iv) The finding of negligence is confirmed and thereby it is made clear that respondents 2 and 3 are not necessary parties to the proceedings hereafter. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19.08.