ORDER The appellant, insurer of the offending vehicle (a truck bearing No. BR-1G-7727) has preferred this appeal against the judgment and award dated 3.5.2007 passed by the learned 9th Additional Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in Claim Case no. 55 of 2005 by which the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition to the date of payment. 2. The claimant, mother of the deceased Nitu Kumari aged about 10 years, has filed the Claim Case No. 55 of 2005 stating therein that when the deceased Nitu Kumari was returning with her on 28.2.2005 at about 1-30 P.M., a truck bearing no. BR-1G-7727 driven rashly and negligently dashed Nitu Kumari causing her instant death. Thereafter, on the basis of the fardbeyan of the claimant, Bochahan P. S. case no. 21 of 2005 was instituted. 3. The owner of the truck did not appear before the Tribunal nor any written statement was filed. The insurer of the offending truck appeared and filed a written statement denying its liability. After taking into consideration the evidence adduced on behalf of both the parties, the learned Tribunal has held that the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was granted as interim compensation and after final hearing the insurer has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- with interest. 4. The grievance of the appellant is that the owner of the truck has violated the terms of the policy and statutory provisions. It appears from the final report submitted by the police in Bochahan P. S. Case no. 21 of 2005 that Vijay Yadav son of Umesh Yadav was the driver of the offending vehicle. The insurer has got the driving licence of the driver verified from the District Transport Office, Patna and the District Transport Officer, Patna has reported that the driving licence no. 6895 of 1996 as claimed by Vijay Yadav to have been issued in favour of him is not correct rather that licence was issued in favour of Kaushal Kishore Pathak. As such, it is apparent that the driver of the offending vehicle had fake licence and he was not authorized to ply the vehicle. 6895 of 1996 as claimed by Vijay Yadav to have been issued in favour of him is not correct rather that licence was issued in favour of Kaushal Kishore Pathak. As such, it is apparent that the driver of the offending vehicle had fake licence and he was not authorized to ply the vehicle. In this way, the owner has violated the terms of the insurance policy and statutory provisions. 5. He has further submitted that the owner of the offending vehicle did not appear and contest the case before the Tribunal. In this case also, he has been granted time to bring on record the driving licence but he has not produced any driving licence. 6. It has further been submitted that O.P.W. 1, Raj Kumar Mishra, the investigator, was examined and cross-examined in this case. He has proved the certificate granted by the District Transport Officer, Patna (Ext. A) and his investigation report regarding driving licence is Exhibit-B. 7. Learned Tribunal held that since O.P.W. 1 is an employee of the insurance company, his evidence is not fit to be believed and further held that the insurance company has failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had no driving licence. 8. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that it is admitted position that the offending vehicle was insured by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. After the occurrence on the fardbeyan of the claimant, Girija Devi, Bochahan P.S. case no. 21 of 2005 was instituted for the offence punishable under Sections 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code (Ext. 1). After investigation the police submitted final form (Ext. 2) showing that Vijay Yadav son of Umesh Yadav was the driver of the offending vehicle bearing driving licence no. 6895 of 1996 (Patna). The owner of the offending vehicle did not appear before the Tribunal nor filed any written statement. During the pendency of the claim application, the insurer got verified the aforesaid driving licence no. 6895 of 1996 and got information from the District Transport Officer, Patna, vide Memo no. 5004 dated 8.6.2006 (Ext. A) that the aforesaid driving licence was issued in favour of Kaushal Kishore Pathak son of Sri Surajdeo Pathak and not in favour of Vijay Yadav, the driver of the offending vehicle. 6895 of 1996 and got information from the District Transport Officer, Patna, vide Memo no. 5004 dated 8.6.2006 (Ext. A) that the aforesaid driving licence was issued in favour of Kaushal Kishore Pathak son of Sri Surajdeo Pathak and not in favour of Vijay Yadav, the driver of the offending vehicle. The surveyer has also reported about the genuineness of the driving licence to the Divisional Manager of the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vide letter dated 20.6.2006 (Ext. B). It appears from the documentary as well as the oral evidence of O.P.W 1 that the insurer has been able to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle had no driving licence. In this view of the matter, the owner has violated the terms of the policy and for which the insurance company cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner. 9. But it is well settled that since the vehicle is insured, the owner cannot be absolved from the liability to make payment to the third party, the claimant in this case. The third party has statutory right to recover compensation from the insurer and it is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount paid to the third party in case there was any breach of condition of the insurance policy. 10. The insurer will make payment of the aforesaid amount to the claimant-respondent no. 1 and since the owner of the vehicle (respondent no. 2) has violated the terms of the policy, the insurer will be entitled to make recovery of the aforesaid amount from the insured, the owner of the offending vehicle. The insurer may file a petition for recovery of the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle and the Tribunal will proceed in accordance with law. 11. To the aforesaid extent the impugned judgment stands modified. 12. The statutory amount deposited in this case be sent to the Tribunal as prayed for by the appellant for payment to the claimant and rest amount will be paid by the insurer to the claimant. In the result, this appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.