JUDGMENT N. Ananda, J.— The Insurance Company has filed this appeal, questioning the finding of Tribunal, fastening liability against Insurance Company i.e., to pay compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 2. I have heard Mr. A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel for Insurance Company and Mr. S.C. Vijay Kumar, learned Counsel for claimant. The owner of vehicle arrayed as II-Respondent though served is not represented. 3. Mr. A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel for Insurance Company would submit that the Tribunal has recorded a finding that the driver of the insured vehicle namely Thippesh s/o Basappa did not hold a licence to drive any type of vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal should not have directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimant and later recover the same from owner of vehicle (II-Respondent). The learned Counsel would further submit that the claimant was travelling as a passenger in the insured vehicle. Therefore, Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 4. The learned Counsel for claimant would justify the impugned award. 5. The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the driver of the insured vehicle did not hold a valid and effective driving licence on the basis of charge-sheet filed by the jurisdictional police. The Insurance Company has not produced any documents to show that the driver of insured vehicle did not hold valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunal considering the statements recorded under Section 161, Code of Criminal Procedure and also proceeding on the assumption that the driver of vehicle is the son of owner of the vehicle, who in fact had failed to produce the driving licence before the Tribunal has held that the driver did not possess valid and effective driving licence. The Tribunal accepting the fact that the driver of vehicle did not hold valid and effective driving licence has directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the claimant and later recover the same from the owner of vehicle. 6. As regards finding of the Tribunal that driver of vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence, I hold this finding is not based on proper appreciation of evidence. The Tribunal should not have entirely relied on the evidence of claimant, more particularly, it is established from evidence that said Basappa, (The father of Thippesh/driver of vehicle) was not the insured. The Tribunal should not have entirely relied on the evidence of claimant, more particularly, it is established from evidence that said Basappa, (The father of Thippesh/driver of vehicle) was not the insured. From the copy of policy, it is seen that one Shree Rama Reddy arrayed as I-Respondent before the Tribunal and II-Respondent before this Court was the insured. In the circumstances, the finding of Tribunal that driver of vehicle did not hold a valid driving licence cannot be sustained. 7. The next point for consideration is: Whether the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation? 8. It is not proved that the claimant was travelling in the vehicle as an employee of I-Respondent before Tribunal. The Tribunal has not recorded any finding on this fact. It is also not clear as to whether the insured I-Respondent before Tribunal had transferred his vehicle to said Basappa, after the policy was issued on 25th September 2006 and before the date of accident (3rd March, 2007). Though the copy of policy marked as Ext. Rule 4 reveals that Insurance Company has collected a premium of Rs. 25 to cover the risk of one employee, yet fact remains that evidence on record is not sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that claimant had been employed by I-Respondent before Tribunal or the I-Respondent before Tribunal had sold the vehicle to said Basappa. Even in such an event, said Basappa should have been made a party before the Tribunal. In the circumstances, the matter requires remand to record a finding on this aspect. Since, the Claimant has not received any compensation, permit the claimant to withdraw compensation deposited by the Insurance Company with this Court, subject to condition that in case if Insurance Company is completely absolved of its liability and if it is held that I-Respondent before Tribunal (Shree Rama Reddy) or said Basappa (yet to be impleaded) is liable to pay compensation, the Insurance Company shall recover the same from I-Respondent before Tribunal or said Basappa. Since, the claimant has not filed any appeal regarding quantum of compensation, there is no need to re-assess the compensation. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER 10. The appeal is accepted. The impugned award is set aside. Since, the claimant has not filed any appeal regarding quantum of compensation, there is no need to re-assess the compensation. 9. In view of the above, I pass the following: ORDER 10. The appeal is accepted. The impugned award is set aside. The matter is remanded to Tribunal to record a finding regarding liability of Insurance Company to pay compensation, in the light of the observations made in this order. The claimant is permitted to implead said Basappa as a party to the proceedings and withdraw compensation deposited with this Court, subject to final result of the case. If the Insurance Company is totally exonerated of its liability, it is entitled to recover Rs. 25,000 from I-Respondent (before Tribunal Shree Rama Reddy or said Basappa, who is yet to be impleaded. In case, if it is held that Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, the Insurance Company shall pay remaining compensation in terms of the impugned award alongwith accrued interest. The amount deposited with this Court shall be transferred to the Tribunal and claimant is entitled to withdraw the same. Office is directed to send back records alongwith a copy of this order.