ORDER : R.S. Jha, J. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by award dated 8.1.2014 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Multai, District Betul in MCC No.19/2010, wherein the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,71,567/- in the case of injuries that the respondent claimant suffered in the accident that occurred on 24.6.2009 near Brindavan Dhaba, Pawarkheda in which truck No.MP-09 HF 7158 owned by respondent no.3 was involved. 3. The only ground on which the award is assailed is that the driver of the truck was not possessing a valid driving licence and in such circumstances the Insurance Company could not have been held liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. The appellant has based his claim on the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sujata Arora and others, 2013 ACJ 2129 . 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the impugned award, it is observed that the Tribunal has considered the aforesaid aspect by framing issue no. 4 from paras ICICI Lombard Gen. Insurance Co. v. Golu & Ors. 9 to 13 of the award. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding that the evidence produced by the appellant indicates that the licence possessed by the driver was fake. However the Tribunal, relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of Pepus Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2013 ACJ 2440 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru & Others, 2003 ACJ 611, wherein it has been held that in case an owner engages a driver who possesses a driving licence and competent and capable to drive the vehicle but later on, on an accident occurring, it is found that the driving licence of the driver was fake, the owner cannot be held to have committed a mistake and that would not preclude the insurance company from indemnifying the owner in case the claim is made against the owner. The Tribunal in paras 11 & 12 have extensively quoted the decisions of the Supreme Court while allowing the claim. 5. The Tribunal in paras 11 & 12 have extensively quoted the decisions of the Supreme Court while allowing the claim. 5. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the driver in question was in possession of a licence which was in fact sized after the accident by the police and it was only during the proceedings of the claim case that the Insurance Company obtained information regarding the validity of the licence. ICICI Lombard Gen. Insurance Co. v. Golu & Ors. The Tribunal has also taken note of the statement of the owner of the vehicle Deepak, D.W-2, to the effect that he had verified the existence of the licence when he had engaged the driver who had been engaged six months prior to the accident and has specifically stated that he had verified and checked the licence of the driver. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts that have come on record, it is clear that the instant case is fully covered by the decisions of the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Pepus Road Transport Corporation (supra) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) and that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in relying upon the same by allowing the claim of the claimant. 7. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal filed by the appellant, being meritless is accordingly dismissed. The award dated 8.1.2014 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Multai, District Betul in MCC No.19/2010 is hereby affirmed.