ORDER This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) is directed against the judgment and award dated 24.1.2011 /28.9.2011 passed by the Additional District Judge-1st-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Munger in Claim Case No. 76 of 2003 whereby the Court below has directed the appellant-Insurance Company to make payment of the compensation amount of Rs. 1,54,000/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case, to the claimant-respondent No.1, Abha Devi and a sum of Rs. 2,31,900/- in favour of the claimant-respondent No.2, Rubi Devi together with interest at the rate of 6% from the date of application. 2. Brief facts of the matter leading to the claim case is that the deceased, son of the respondent No.1 who happens to be the husband of the respondent No.2, namely, Rajesh Mistri was travelling in a jeep operating as a taxi bearing registration No. BR-53-1187. It was the case of the claimants that as the jeep took a turn at Milki Rasalpur crossing, the deceased Rajesh Mistri was thrown out of the jeep and suffering fatal injuries, he died during the course of treatment. Setting up a claim for compensation, a case was filed before the Tribunal giving rise to Claim Case No. 76 of 2003 and which has since been allowed directing the Insurance Company to make payment of the compensation amount with interest and hence this appeal. 3. I have heard Mr. Raj Kumar Singh Vikram, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, Mr. Ratnakar Ambatha, learned counsel for the claimants-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Amrit Abhijat learned counsel appearing for the owner and driver of the offending jeep bearing registration No. BR 53-1187 who are respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in this appeal. 4. Mr. Vikram has raised two issues to contest the compensation amount. He submits that whereas the record manifests that the deceased was travelling on the roof of the taxi, rendering it to be a case of contributory negligence, even the driver of the offending vehicle namely Pravesh Mandal was not holding a valid license, to operate a transport vehicle. 4. Mr. Vikram has raised two issues to contest the compensation amount. He submits that whereas the record manifests that the deceased was travelling on the roof of the taxi, rendering it to be a case of contributory negligence, even the driver of the offending vehicle namely Pravesh Mandal was not holding a valid license, to operate a transport vehicle. It is submitted that even though the driver did possess a driving license for a light motor vehicle, but in terms of provisions underlying Rule 18 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules framed under the Act, there has to be a specific endorsement on the license entitling the driver to drive a transport vehicle, which is missing in the present case. Mr. Vikram in support of his submission has relied upon the statement made by the claimant wife of the deceased recorded in paragraph 17 of the case diary as also the statement of some of the co-passengers recorded in paragraphs 6 to 8 of the case diary to submit that the fact that the deceased was travelling on the roof top, stands substantiated. He thus submits that in view of the circumstances setforth, the compensation amount requires a modification. Learned counsel has relied upon a Bench decision of this Court reported in 2011(2) PLJR 124 (Kalpana Devi Vs. Jhagru Pandit) to submits that in the circumstances setforth not only the compensation amount requires a modification to the extent of at least 50%, even thereafter the liability is to be borne by the owner of the offending vehicle, in view of the invalidity of the driving license. 5. In so far as the issue of roof top travelling by the deceased is concerned, the argument has been contested by Mr. Ambastha appearing for the claimants to submit that the reliance by the Insurance Company on the case diary is not correct since the present proceedings is in the nature of a civil proceedings and any document forming part of a criminal records, are not to be looked into. It is submitted that though no such instance reflects either from the claim petition or the F.I.R., the Insurance Company has ventured into the case diary to make out a case and which is impermissible. 6. Mr. It is submitted that though no such instance reflects either from the claim petition or the F.I.R., the Insurance Company has ventured into the case diary to make out a case and which is impermissible. 6. Mr. Abhijat, learned counsel appearing for the owner and driver of the offending vehicle has tried to disown that his vehicle was ever involved in the accident. It is the contention of Mr. Abhijat that the respondent owner and driver of the vehicle have been framed in this case and that though the registration number of the vehicle given in the claim case does belong to him, but it was never involved in the accident. It is the contention of Mr. Abhijat that there has been a delay in registering of the case and that there are discrepancies in the statement of the so called passengers who were never examined during the course of the trial. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and I have perused the materials on record. 8. The claimants before the Tribunal were the mother and wife of the deceased Rajesh Mistri of whom the wife Rubi Devi was travelling along with him at the time of the fatal accident. The claim case specifically gives registration number of the jeep as BR-53-1187. The claimant Rubi Devi has also deposed before the Tribunal in which she has categorically stated that she along with her deceased husband had boarded the jeep and at the crossing her husband got thrown out of the jeep and suffering fatal injuries, he deceased during the course of treatment. The claimant wife has been cross examined by the Insurance Company and she has maintained her statement as stated in the claim petition that the deceased was inside the jeep but got thrown out at the turning and due to which he suffered injuries. A perusal of the statement made in the claim petition with that of the deposition of the claimant widow Rubi Devi manifest that she has maintained the same sequence of events as stated by her at either of the places. A perusal of the statement made in the claim petition with that of the deposition of the claimant widow Rubi Devi manifest that she has maintained the same sequence of events as stated by her at either of the places. Surprisingly, even when the Insurance Company has chosen to confront the statement made in the claim petition by the widow of the deceased in the light of her statement recorded in the case diary, no such attempt was made by them to confront her on this aspect during the course of her cross examination. There is no other materials on record except for the statement, recorded in the case diary. In fact no attempt was made by the Insurance Company to lead the co-passengers as witness or by confronting Rubi Devi on her statement, to establish their case. 9. This Court would go by the statement made in the claim petition and the deposition of the claimants and not on the statement recorded in the case diary. There being no other material on record to suggest that the deceased was travelling on the roof top, the issue raised by Mr. Vikram stands rejected. That would bring to this Court to the second issue raised regarding invalidity of the driving license. Again though the owner and driver had registered their appearance before the Tribunal, no attempt was made by the Insurance Company to confront the owner of the offending vehicle on this aspect. The argument of Mr. Vikram that the issues raised, finds mention in the notes of argument would not bail out the Insurance Company. 10. Apart therefrom, the issue regarding invalidity of the driving license to avoid liability, is no more res integra and stands settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2013) 7 SCC 62 [: 2013 (3) BLJ 179 (SC)] (S. Iyyapan Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr.) when a similar issue was raised before the Supreme Court and the Apex Court while not interfering with the claim, afforded liberty to the Insurance Company to make recovery from the owner upon establishing this fact. 11. In view of my conclusions drawn hereinabove, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the judgment and award impugned and this appeal is accordingly dismissed. 11. In view of my conclusions drawn hereinabove, this Court is not persuaded to interfere with the judgment and award impugned and this appeal is accordingly dismissed. The dismissal of this appeal however would not preclude the Insurance Company to establish the fact regarding the invalidity of the driving license before the Tribunal, for seeking recovery of the compensation amount from the owner in the light of the law settled by the Supreme Court in the case of S. Iyyapan (supra). 12. Let the statutory amount deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company be remitted to the Additional District Judge-1st -cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Munger for its disbursement in accordance with law. 13. Let the Lower Court Records received in connection with Claim Case No. 76 of 2003 be returned to the Additional District Judge-1st-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Munger forthwith.