Judgment This appeal has been preferred against judgment and award dated 24.2.2012 passed by the 1st Additional Dist Judge cum Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, Bokaro, in connection with Title (MV) No. 68 of 2009 whereby the appellant insurance company has been directed to pay compensation of Rs. 15,60,356/- to the claimant respondent no.1 with simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing application. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the deceased Raju husband of the claimant was an employee of Dhori Central Coalfields Ltd. On 6.6.2009 at about 1.p.m, Raju (deceased) along with his friend had proceeded on motor cycle bearing registration no. JH 09D 4764 to attend his duty, but near Subhash Nagar Dumping Side, truck bearing registration no. JH 02K 3428 being driven rashly and negligently caused dash to the said motor cycle, as a result of which he sustained injuries and was removed to hospital where he died. In this connection, Bermo P.S. Case No. 67 of 2009 dated 6.6.2009 under section 279 /304A IPC was registered against the driver of truck bearing registration no. JH 02K 3428. Respondent no.1/claimant, being widow of the deceased, filed an application for grant of compensation and the said application was registered as Title (MV) No.68 of 2009. 3. The appellant as well as owner and driver of the offending vehicle appeared before the tribunal. The appellant filed show cause, whereas the owner and the diver of the said truck neither filed any document nor written statement. The tribunal considering the age and income of the deceased has been pleased to award compensation as indicated above after deducting interim compensation paid under section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 4. The appellant has assailed the judgment and award on the ground that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle did not produce any document nor did they file their written statement. Since no document including the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was brought on record, the appellant could not proceed to verify the same and in this view of the matter, the presumption would be that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence at the time of accident. Since no document including the licence of the driver of the offending vehicle was brought on record, the appellant could not proceed to verify the same and in this view of the matter, the presumption would be that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence at the time of accident. It was further argued that while calculating compensation amount, the tribunal has accepted the gross salary and the deductions indicated in the pay slip have not been considered. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant respondent no.1 has submitted that he has nothing to do with the disputes prevailing between the appellant on the one hand and the owner /driver on the other hand and the widow/claimant cannot not be deprived from getting the amount awarded by the tribunal. Respondents 2 and 3 who happen to be the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, have not appeared inspite of valid service of notice. 6. Heard the counsel for the parties and I have gone through the impugned judgment and award. First of all, the appellant insurance company is directed to pay awarded amount to the claimant respondent no.1 within ninety days from this order and the claimant/widow shall not be compelled to move from door to door for the purpose of getting the awarded amount. It is pointed out that the awarded amount has already been deposited with the district certificate officer in connection with Certificate Case No. 1/2012-13. If it is so, the claimant shall not be debarred from withdrawing the amount from the court of the certificate officer and the balance amount on account of interest shall be paid to the claimant as indicated within ninety days. 7. It is apparent from the perusal of the judgment that the owner and diver of the vehicle appeared before the tribunal, but did not file written statement or any document, nor did they file their show cause. The appellant insurance company in its written statement has stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence and, therefore, there was breach of contract between insured and the insurer. The appellant insurance company in its written statement has stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence and, therefore, there was breach of contract between insured and the insurer. Since the owner and the driver of the vehicle in question are not before me to throw light on the issues raised by the appellant, I feel it is desirable to remand the case to the tribunal to decide whether the offending vehicle was having valid document and the driver was having valid licence or not. The tribunal after receipt of this order shall issue notice to the owner and driver (respondents 2 and 3) for their appearance and proceed further to decide the issue as indicated above. If the tribunal comes to the conclusion that there was breach of contract between the insurer and insured, an appropriate order giving right to recover the amount may be passed in favour of the appellant insurance company and the insurance company shall take steps in accordance with law to recover the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle. 8. It is further made clear that appearance of respondent 1/claimant is waived and no notice is required to be issued to her, because the issue involved is in between the owner and driver on the one hand and the insurer on the other hand. Liberty is given to the insurance company to withdraw statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the appeal, which will be subject to final payment of the awarded amount with interest up to date and on production of receipt thereof. The appeal is disposed of.