ORAL ORDER Insurance Company is assailing the judgment and award dated 15.11.2002 and 28.11.2002 respectively, passed by the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal-cum-5th Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur in Claim Case No. 261 of 1999. By virtue of the said award liability for payment of compensation to the deceased or the claimant has been fixed upon the Insurance Company on a total wrong application of law, as is the stand of the counsel for the appellant. 2. Effort to serve notice on behalf of OPs did not succeed through all other means, which compelled the Court to direct the appellant to go for paper publication which was also done. However, as of today when the appeal is taken up there is none to represent any of the OPs, even though a power was filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1 through a counsel. 3. The factual aspect is not in dispute. The limited question, which has been raised by the counsel for the appellant is whether the finding given in paragraph 12 of the award and the reasoning given therein is in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court on such issue. Counsel for the appellant has taken this Court through the finding which has emerged in paragraph 12, which does indicate that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving license on the date of the accident, in the sense that the driving license no. 4419 / 95 / G purportedly issued by the DTO, Guahati was not found to be genuine and valid but despite the above accepted position and finding recorded by the Tribunal it has gone on the principle laid down by a judgment of a Andhra Pradesh High Court rendered in 1999 AC 1077 (AP) as well as 2001 ACJ 542. 4. The stand of the appellant is that there are clear and categorical declaration by the Hon'ble Apex Court in many a decisions and the view now on such issue is that in case the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid license on the date of the incidence then the liability cannot be saddled upon the Insurance company, but will be required to be borne by the vehicle owner. In this regard a decision reported in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Versus Vidyadhar Mahariwala and others, reported in AIR 2009 SC 208 has been pressed into service. 5. The Court has gone through the decision. The Hon'ble Apex Court after taking into consideration the various decisions rendered on such issue, one way or the other, has finally come to a definitive conclusion in paragraph 11 of such judgment which is quoted herein below:- “11. In Ishwar Chandra’s case (supra) the three decisions referred to by the High Court were considered and it was held that the insurance company would have no liability in the case of this nature. We are in agreement with the view. The appeal deserves to be allowed which we direct. The impugned order of the High Court is set aside. It is open to the claimant to recover the amount from respondent No. 2.” 6. If the ratio of the above decision is taken into consideration coupled with the finding recorded by the Tribunal itself about the status of the driving license possessed by the driver at the time of the incidence, then it is a case of the driver not having a valid license or a fake license on which he was driving the vehicle. The Insurance Company, therefore, cannot be held liable or responsible for payment of compensation in the above given factual matrix and the principle of law applicable to such situations. 7. The Writ Application is allowed. The judgment and award passed in Claim Case No. 261 of 1999 by the Court of 5th Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Muzaffarpur is quashed to the extent that the compensation or the liability to pay compensation will be restricted to the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company is absolved of the same. 8. Office is directed to take steps for refund of the money deposited by the Insurance Company to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- as per statutory requirement for maintaining the appeal. It will now be refunded to the appellant forthwith, preferably by way of bank draft payable in the name of the appellant. 9. Office is directed to return the LCR to the concerned court immediately.