Judgment Present appeal has been preferred by M/s New India Assurance company Ltd. against the judgment and award dated 17.03.2005, passed by learned 1st Addl. District Judge cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Jamshedpur in connection with Compensation Case No.21 of 2000 whereby and whereunder the claim application filed by respondent No.1 has been allowed and the appellant has been directed to pay the awarded amount with interest, as indicated in the impugned judgment. 2. Respondents have not appeared even after substituted service of notice and therefore, the appeal has been taken up as exparte against them. 3. The appellant has raised only one issue that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence on the date of occurrence and the owner of the offending vehicle had allowed a person, who was not having valid licence, to ply the vehicle on road. Since R2, the owner of the vehicle, had violated the terms of the policy, he should have been held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants and the appellant should not have been fastened with the liability. In this context, learned counsel has drawn my attention towards the evidence of O.P.W.1 Somen Kumar Bagchi who has proved the report of the investigator which indicates that the driver R3 was not having valid licence and said O.P.W1 has proved documents exhibitB series which include the report issued by the office of the D.T.O., Kanpur. As per the report of the D.T.O., Kanpur the licence which was brought on record was forged and fake and it was not issued from the office of the D.T.O., Kanpur. 4. The learned counsel has also drawn my attention towards paragraph9 in which issue No.3 has been discussed. It is contended that learned Tribunal has committed gross error by not relying on the documents exhibit-B series which were sufficient to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence. The Tribunal has wrongly held that investigators appointed by the appellant were not authorised by the Court to verify those documents or records of the office of the D.T.O. and therefore those documents cannot be relied upon. The observations that documents exhibit-B series are not reliable and no reliance can be placed is not tenable and therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal in this regard are illegal and liable to be set aside. The observations that documents exhibit-B series are not reliable and no reliance can be placed is not tenable and therefore, the findings of the learned Tribunal in this regard are illegal and liable to be set aside. The liability to pay awarded amount should have been directed to be paid by the owner of the vehicle i.e. R2. 5. I have gone through the impugned judgment and the case record which is available before me. The brief facts, appearing on the record, is that claimant Moti Lal Prasad, along with his wife, was going on his TVS moped towards Burma Mines but on the way near the house of Vijay Prasad, a truck bearing registration No.BR16G 6611 being driven rashly and negligently dashed the claimant as a result claimant and his wife sustained injuries and they were moved to Tata Main Hospital for their treatment but Somari Devi, wife of the claimant, succumbed to the injuries. In this regard Burma Mines (Golmuri) P.S. Case No.21/2000 dated 01.02.2000 u/s 279, 304A and 427 of the I.P.C. was registered against driver of the offending vehicle. The claimant has also filed compensation case No.21 of 2000 before the learned Tribunal for grant of compensation against the injuries and the death of his wife which was duly considered after holding trial and recording evidence. During the course of trial the licence which was standing in the name of R3 Ram Dayal Singh was brought on record. The appellant has appointed investigator to verify the genuineness of the licence from the office of the D.T.O., Kanpur from where it was alleged to have been issued in favour of R3 Ram Dayal Singh. 6. Now coming to the evidence of O.P.W.1 Soman Kumar Bagchi. It appears that he has proved the copy of the insurance policy exhibitA, the investigation report submitted by Arun Kumar Tiwari exhibit-B, the investigation report submitted by Anil Kumar Anal exhibit B/1 and the report submitted by investigator Narendra Mohan Duwa exhibit B/2. I would like to observe that all these documents exhibitB series are the report submitted by different investigators appointed by appellant. None of these documents have been issued from the office of either D.T.O., Jamshedpur or D.T.O., Hazaribagh or D.T.O., Kanpur. The appellant has failed to bring on record the report with regard to the genuineness of the licence issued from the office of the licencing authority, Kanpur. None of these documents have been issued from the office of either D.T.O., Jamshedpur or D.T.O., Hazaribagh or D.T.O., Kanpur. The appellant has failed to bring on record the report with regard to the genuineness of the licence issued from the office of the licencing authority, Kanpur. In view of the evidence of O.P.W.1 and the documents exhibit-B series, the insurance company has failed to bring on record that driving licence issued in the name of R3 Ram Dayal Singh was fake and forged. To some extent, I do agree that the reasoning given by learned Tribunal in para9 of the impugned judgment and the observations made therein are not proper to discard the issue raised by the appellant in the Court below. 7. Be that as it may, I have already held that the appellant has failed to bring any document on record to prove that the licence issued in the name of R3 was forged and fake. 8. In view of the discussions made above, I do not find merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed. The appellant is directed to deposit the awarded amount with interest uptodate within 60 days from the date of this order before the Tribunal and on deposit of cheque that may be handed over to the claimant. The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/which the appellant has deposited before this Court shall also be transmitted to the Tribunal so that the amount may be withdrawn by the claimant. 9. Before parting with, the appellant is given liberty to bring separate proceedings to prove the driving licence issued in the name of R3 Ram Dayal Singh brought on record is forged and fake, by adducing evidence and bringing proper documents on record if they so intend and in case they succeed in proving this fact, they may sue the owner of the vehicle for the recovery of the amount. It is further made clear that claimant shall not be harassed and he should not be made a party, if the dispute continue between the insurer and the insured.