ORDER Heard Sri Krishna Kishore Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri S.K.Lall, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Pritish Kumar Lal, learned counsel for Respondent nos.1 to 4. 2. The present appeal under Section-173 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “M.V.Act”) has been preferred by the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. appellants against the Judgment dated 02.04.2002 and Award dated 19.04.2002 passed by Sri R.K.Rateria, 4th Additional Claim Tribunal, Begusarai (hereinafter referred to as the “Claim Tribunal”) in M.A.C.T. Case No.71 of 1998, whereby the learned Claim Tribunal has directed the appellants to pay lump-sum compensation amount of Rs. 2 Lacs to the claimants in view of death of husband of Respondent no.1 in a vehicular accident. 3. Short fact of the case is that on 11.05.1998 in the morning, while Muni Lal Yadav (husband of Claimant/ Respondent no.1) was moving on his bullock-cart near village-Iniyar on N.H.31 within Begusarai Muffasil Police Station, due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of a Bus, bearing Registration No.BR-11A/6495, accident had occurred, in which he died on the spot. The bullock-cart was also destroyed and one of the oxen died. Thereafter, an F.I.R. vide Begusarai Mufassil P.S. Case No. 81 of 1998 was registered under Section 279/304 of the Indian Penal Code against the driver of the offending bus. On the dead body of the deceased, postmortem examination was conducted. After investigation, chargesheet was submitted against the driver of the offending bus. Since the death had occurred in a vehicular accident, a claim petition was filed, which was registered as Claim Case No.71 of 1998 and the learned Claim Tribunal vide its impugned Judgment and Award after discussing all the materials on record directed the appellants, which is insurer of the offending vehicle, to pay Rs.2 Lacs as lump sum compensation. It was directed to pay within one month from the date of order, failing which the appellants were directed to pay interest @ 10 % per annum on the compensation amount. The Judgment was passed on 2nd April, 2002 and thereafter the insurer/appellants aggrieved with the impugned Judgment and Award filed the present appeal on 13.08.2002. From the ordersheet, it appears that in a leisurely manner, the appellants have taken steps in the present appeal. 4. The Judgment was passed on 2nd April, 2002 and thereafter the insurer/appellants aggrieved with the impugned Judgment and Award filed the present appeal on 13.08.2002. From the ordersheet, it appears that in a leisurely manner, the appellants have taken steps in the present appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants, while assailing the impugned Judgment and Award, has firstly argued that the learned Claim Tribunal has committed serious error in directing the appellants to pay compensation amount on the ground that in this case, material was brought on record on behalf of the insurer of the vehicle that the driver of the offending vehicle was having fake and fictitious driving licence. According to learned counsel for the appellants, it was a case in which the owner of the vehicle had breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and, as such, the owner himself was liable to pay the compensation amount and not the Insurance Company. He further submits that on the point of income, there was contradictory evidence; even then the learned Claim Tribunal without any basis has come to the conclusion that the deceased was earning Rs.2000/- per month. In support of his argument that in absence of valid driving licence, only owner was liable to be directed to pay compensation amount, learned counsel for the appellants has heavily relied on Judgments reported in (i) 2005(3) PLJR (SC) 61; National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mrs. Kanti Devi & Ors. and (ii) AIR 2008 SC 1408 ; Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Prithvi Raj. He submits that in a case, where it is established that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence, in that situation only and only the owner can be directed to pay compensation amount and not the Insurance Company. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been pleaded to set aside the impugned Judgment and Award. 5. Sri S.K.Lall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants/ Respondent 1 to 4 submits that there is no error in the impugned Judgment and Award. He submits that though a plea was taken by the Insurance Company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence, before the learned Claim Tribunal, no cogent evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company to show that the driver was not having valid licence. He submits that though a plea was taken by the Insurance Company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence, before the learned Claim Tribunal, no cogent evidence was adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company to show that the driver was not having valid licence. He submits that before the learned Claim Tribunal, the claimants had produced photo copy of the driving licence of the driver of the offending bus and also photo copy of the insurance policy. He submits that the learned Claim Tribunal in its Judgment has noticed that the appellants/insurer has even raised suspicion on the insurance policy, though no cogent material was brought on record on behalf of the insurer of the offending vehicle. It was argued that if the Insurance Company takes a plea that the driver of the offending commercial vehicle was not having valid driving licence, in that event onus is on the insurer to bring on record evidence on that account. It was argued that before the Claim Tribunal, the Insurance Company has produced a report of a private investigator, which has been marked as Ext.A with objection. Besides filing the said report, the insurer has not bothered even to produce the scribe of that report. The investigator was not produced to get the investigation report proved before the learned Claim Tribunal and, as such, the learned Claim Tribunal has rightly and legally not taken any notice of the investigator’s report. On the point of income, it was submitted that it is true that in the evidence of Clamant Witness no.1, who is wife of the deceased, there were some contradictory statements, but fact remains that she was purely a house wife and even then she has given categorical statement that her husband was earning Rs.400-500 -1000 and on some occasion, as per A.W. 1, the deceased was earning Rs.4000-5000/- per month. However, A.W.2, who was a companion of the deceased and father of the deceased, had made specific statement in his deposition before the learned Claim Tribunal that the deceased was earning Rs.2000/- per month. It was argued that though it was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.2000/- per month, the learned Claim Tribunal instead of computing the compensation amount on the basis of Schedule-II of the M.V.Act has preferred to issue direction for payment of lump-sum compensation amount of Rs.2 Lacs to the claimants. It was argued that though it was claimed that the deceased was earning Rs.2000/- per month, the learned Claim Tribunal instead of computing the compensation amount on the basis of Schedule-II of the M.V.Act has preferred to issue direction for payment of lump-sum compensation amount of Rs.2 Lacs to the claimants. 6. Sri Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Claimants/ Respondent nos. 1 to 4 on the point of driving licence has relied on a Judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2003(SC) 1292; United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Lehru and Ors. While referring to the present case, he has argued that since in the present case, no plausible evidence was brought on record by the Insurance Company to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle was having fake and fictitious driving licence, the learned Claim Tribunal has rightly not entertained the plea of the Insurance Company. Accordingly, it has been argued that the learned Claim Tribunal has rightly and legally passed the order for grant of compensation. He has pointed out that in normal course, when a claim petition is filed, it is the duty on the part of the Claim Tribunal to direct for paying compensation amount along with reasonable interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. However, in the present case, the learned Claim Tribunal has committed some error which, according to learned counsel for the claimants/ Respondent nos.1 to 4, is required to be rectified. 7. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. After going through the materials available on record, it is evident that in support of the claimants’ case, four witnesses were examined, out of them AW2 was a witness, who was on bullock-cart at the time of accident, had also received injuries. The claimants had brought on record number of documentary evidence including photo copy of driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle and photo copy of insurance policy, besides copy of F.I.R., chargesheet etc. The claimants had brought on record number of documentary evidence including photo copy of driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle and photo copy of insurance policy, besides copy of F.I.R., chargesheet etc. After going through the record, it is evident that the Insurance Company i.e. appellants though had produced a report purported to be prepared by a private investigator, no step was taken by the insurer/ appellants to get the said document proved nor investigator was produced by the insurer/appellants to establish that the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was fake and fictitious. In such a situation, it was the duty on the part of the insurer/appellants to establish the same, which has not been done in the present case. Even the Judgment, on which learned counsel for the appellants has relied i.e. Kanti Devi’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in such situation it is the duty on the part of the insurer to establish the same. The relevant paragraph-9 of the said Judgment is quoted hereunder:– “9.Obviously, defence can be raised by the insurer about the licence being fake. By analogy, the insurer can also take a defence that the driver did not have the requisite driving licence to drive a particular type of vehicle. Such defence can be raised and it will be for the insurer to prove that the insured did not take adequate care and caution to verify genuineness or otherwise of the licence held by the driver. The effect of the evidence in this regard has to be considered by the concerned tribunal.” 8. Even in Prithvi Raj’s case (supra), on which reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the appellants, the Apex Court had noticed that the Insurance Company had produced witnesses and sufficient materials to establish that the driving licence was not valid and, as such, the appellants may not get any help from the Prithvi Raj’s case (supra). 9. After going through the materials available on the record, the Court is of the opinion that the learned Claim Tribunal, while directing for paying lump sum compensation amount to the claimants by the appellants has committed no error. The only modification in the order is required to the extent of directing the appellant/Insurance Company to pay simple interest on the compensation amount i.e. Rs. The only modification in the order is required to the extent of directing the appellant/Insurance Company to pay simple interest on the compensation amount i.e. Rs. 2 Lacs, @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of realization of amount. 10. Before parting with this order, it is necessary to be indicated that in the present case, the Insurance Company has not proceeded fairly. Fact remains that the M.V.Act is a beneficiary legislation. In the present case, accident had taken place in the year 1998, thereafter, the learned Claim Tribunal has passed order in the year 2002, which was assailed by the appellants before this Court by filing the present appeal. From the ordersheet, it is evident that the appellants had taken completely casual approach, due to which hearing in the matter was delayed inadequately. 11. I do not find any ground for interference with the Judgment and Award. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. 12. While dismissing this appeal, it is desirable to direct the appellants to pay the compensation amount along with interest within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.