1. Respondent no. 5 is set exparte. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 14.03.2007 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pulwama, in case titled Mst. Raja & ors. v. Abdul Hameed Wagay & anr., in file No. 42/claim, whereby an amount of Rs. 6,39,500/-with 9% interest came tobe awarded in favour of claimants-respondents 1 to 4 and against the appellant-insurer (for short, the impugned award), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 3. Following issues came to be framed: 1. Whether on 18.11.02 the deceased, namely, Gh. Mohi-ud-Din Dar, died in an accident at SKIMS Soura when the deceased was traveling in a vehicle bearing Regd. No. JK13/418 driven by respondent no. 1 very rashly and negligently? OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to receive the compensation amount of Rs. 44.20 lakhs on account of the death of the deceased? OPP 3. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing a valid D.L. at the time of accident? OPP-2 4. Whether the respondent-insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners, if so why? OPP-2 5. Relief." 4. Mr. Beigh, learned counsel for appellant has not questioned the findings returned by the Tribunal so far as the same relate to issues 1 & 2. The short controversy involved in this appeal is only to the extent of saddling the insurer-appellant with the liability. 5. I have gone through the impugned award and the record. There is sufficient proof on the file that respondent no. 5-driver of the offending vehicle was driving Tata Mini Bus bearing registration No. JK13-418 rashly and negligently, as a result of which it met with an accident near Drangnard on 18.11.2002. Deceased, namely, Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din sustained injuries and succumbed to the same at Sher-e-Kashmir Institute of Medical Sciences, Soura. Claimants-respondents 1 to 4 have proved that they were dependants upon the deceased and, thus, have lost the source of dependency. They have also succeeded in proving the income of deceased. Thus the findings returned on issues 1 & 2 are upheld. 6. Now coming to issues 3 & 4. 7. Admittedly, appellant was the insurer of the offending vehicle. Now it is to be seen whether it can be saddled with the liability. 8. Respondent no. 5 was the driver as well as owner of the offending vehicle. Thus the findings returned on issues 1 & 2 are upheld. 6. Now coming to issues 3 & 4. 7. Admittedly, appellant was the insurer of the offending vehicle. Now it is to be seen whether it can be saddled with the liability. 8. Respondent no. 5 was the driver as well as owner of the offending vehicle. He was to prove whether he was having valid driving license at the time of accident. Though he has placed on record photostat copy of the license disclosing the date of issuance as 03.11.2002. However, one of the witnesses examined by the appellant-insurer, namely, Peerzada Noor-ud-Din, Licensing Clerk in RTO Office, Srinagar, has specifically deposed that no such license was issued in favour of driver-respondent no. 5 on 03.11.2002, but, in fact, it was issued on 30.11.2002. Thus, there is clinching evidence on the file led by the insurer-appellant to the effect that the driver was not having driving license at the time of accident, not to speak of having valid and effective license on 18.11.2002. 9. In the given circumstances, I deem it proper to saddle the insurer-appellant with the liability but with the right of recovery. It is so ordered. Accordingly, the award is modified to the extent indicated above. Appellant is at liberty to lay motion for recovery of the awarded amount. 10. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of claimants-respondents 1 to 4 in terms of the impugned award after proper verification and identification. Court fees to be charged first. 11. This appeal is, accordingly, disposed of along with all CMPs.