JUDGMENT Heard the learned counsel for appellant as well as respondent-owner of the vehicle. Perused the papers. 2. The present appeal is filed against the Award dated 4.1.2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, FTC No. III-cum-M.V. Act, Jamshedpur (for short "the Tribunal") whereby the learned Tribunal passed an award of compensation of Rs. 5,39,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. on 17.6.2002 and further held that the insurer namely the United India Insurance Company Ltd. i.e. O.P. No.1 is liable to indemnify the owner of the insured vehicle for damages including the claim for compensation raised by the third parties. As such the learned Tribunal directed the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. O.P. No. 2 to pay the amount of compensation together with interest as stated above and also directed the insurer namely the New India Insurance Company Ltd. to indemnify the owner in respect of the amount of compensation so payable by him. It was further directed that the abovementioned O.Ps. should pay the compensation amount alongwith interest within one month from the date of the order to the applicant Srimati Anita Singh. 3. In the present appeal the appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the impugned judgment and award on the ground, inter alia that despite specific defence taken by the appellant that the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence, the Tribunal saddled the appellant with the liability for payment of compensation. 4. It appears that at the time of admission of this appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/-. The respondent-owner of the vehicle filed an application for adducing additional evidence while dealing with the interlocutory application. This court, in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case, directed the respondent-owner of the vehicle to deposit part of the compensation amount so that the claimants-victims may not be deprived of getting awarded amount. Accordingly, this court directed the respondent-owner of the vehicle to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- within two weeks from the date of the order and it was further observed tl1at that on depositing of the aforesaid amount, the interlocutory Application filed by both the parties shall be considered. 5. Accordingly, this court directed the respondent-owner of the vehicle to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- within two weeks from the date of the order and it was further observed tl1at that on depositing of the aforesaid amount, the interlocutory Application filed by both the parties shall be considered. 5. The short question arises in the present appeal is as to whether the court below has properly considered the evidence adduced before it. It appears that specific defence was taken by the Insurance Company that the driver was not holding a valid licence. Evidence to that effect was led by the Insurance Company but surprisingly the owner of the vehicle although filed written statement but did not even cross-examine the witnesses and denied those facts. The respondent-owner of the vehicle has produced the copy of the driving licence by way of filing an application under Section 41 Rule 27 C.P.C. to show that the driver was authorized to drive the heavy motor vehicle. On the other hand, the appellant-Insurance Company has also filed one application for adducing the photocopy of the R.C. Book and permit to show that offending vehicle is a heavy motor vehicle for which there was no valid driving licence. 6. The aforesaid disputed question of fact cannot be examined by this Court at the appellate stage and therefore it is desirable to remit the matter back to the learned Tribunal for deciding the issue with regard to the validity of the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant-Insurance Company has produced the photocopy of R.C. Book and permit to show that offending vehicle is a heavy motor vehicle for which there was no valid driving licence, likewise the respondent-owner of the vehicle has also produce the photocopy of the driving licence to show that the driver was authorized to drive the 'heavy motor vehicle. 7. The appellant-Insurance Company has produced the photocopy of R.C. Book and permit to show that offending vehicle is a heavy motor vehicle for which there was no valid driving licence, likewise the respondent-owner of the vehicle has also produce the photocopy of the driving licence to show that the driver was authorized to drive the 'heavy motor vehicle. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the matter, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal but in the background of the case discussed hereinabove, it appears that the learned Tribunal has not properly dealt with and decided the issue regarding validity of the driving licence and therefore, for the limited purpose of deciding of the said issue it is desirable to remand the matter to the Tribunal with direction to decide this issue preferably within six months from the date of this order. It appears that the appellant-Insurance Company Ltd. has deposited a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- before the Tribunal and the respondent-owner of the vehicle has also deposited a sum of Rs. 1 ,00,000/- as directed by this Court. In addition to the aforesaid amount, while remanding back this matter to the Tribunal interest of the original claimant is required to be protected with further direction to the appellant-Insurance Company to deposit 50% of the total awarded amount and for that purpose the appellant-Insurance Company shall deposit remaining amount over and above deposited by the appellant, likewise respondent-owner shall also deposit 50% of the awarded amount before the Tribunal meaning thereby in addition to Rs. One lakh already deposited by the respondent-owner of the vehicle. It appears that out of the total amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal i.e. Rs. 5,39,000/- the claimant has received Rs. 50,000/- by way of interim compensation and therefore, the balance amount of Rs. 4,89,000/- is the amount of compensation to be paid to the applicant. It appears that out of the aforesaid amount, Rs.1,50,000/- deposited by the appellant was ordered to be paid to the original claimant. So now the appellant as well as the respondent-owner of the vehicle shall deposit the remaining awarded amount which is to be paid to the original claimant after proper verification by the Tribunal. It appears that out of the aforesaid amount, Rs.1,50,000/- deposited by the appellant was ordered to be paid to the original claimant. So now the appellant as well as the respondent-owner of the vehicle shall deposit the remaining awarded amount which is to be paid to the original claimant after proper verification by the Tribunal. The Tribunal may also consider for proper investment of the 60% of the said awarded amount in any nationalized bank so that the claimant can get regular interest out of the same and remaining 40% of the amount be paid to the claimant after proper verification. It is clarified that so far as the award amount of compensation is concerned, the same is confirmed, but so far as the validity of licence is concerned, the Tribunal shall re-examine the issue, after affording the reasonable opportunity to the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent shall cooperate the concerned Tribunal for early disposal of the matter. 8. With the aforesaid observation, this Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of.