JUDGMENT Dr. B.R. SARANGI, J. : The appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, assailing the judgment dated 25.1.1991 passed by the Second Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Berhampur in M.J.C. No.169 of 1991 directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.59,000/- to the claimant-respondent No.1, the wife of the deceased Sulina Gadwa along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 15.07.1993, i.e., the date of filing of the amended claim petition adding Insurance Company as a party till realization. It was further directed that if the Insurance Company fails to pay the same within a period of thirty days from the date of the passing of order, it shall be liable to pay interest @ 15 per annum thereafter till realization. 2.The claimant-respondent No.1 filed an application under Section 163 of the Motor Vehicle Act before the 2nd M.A.C.T. (SD), Berhampur claiming compensation due to death of her husband in a vehicular accident caused by the vehicle belonging the respondent No.2 in which the appellant-Insurance Company has been impleaded as party. 3.Miss Rimjhim Pati, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. P. Roy learned counsel for the appellant vehemently urged that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay pursuant to judgment passed by the 2nd M.A.C.T. (SD), Berhampur as the helper of the vehicle was driving the vehicle at the material time having no driving licence and therefore, the determination of compensation by the learned Tribunal is absolutely misconceived one. Even on the basis of the police report, the factum of driving of the vehicle by the helper being established by no stretch of imagination, the Insurance-Company is liable to pay the dues. 4.Mr. S.K. Behera on behalf of Mr. C.A. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 refuted the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and stated that on 09.06.1991 at about 11 A.M. near the South Orissa Agency, M.G. Road, Jeypore, while Guru Hantal, the deceased was standing, a truck baring No. OSK-3177 being driven in a rash and negligent manner came and ran over him causing his death on the spot. Therefore, the claimant being the mother of the deceased filed the application claiming compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/- from the owner as well as Insurance Company. The owner of the offending vehicle has denied the allegation made by the claimant. Therefore, the claimant being the mother of the deceased filed the application claiming compensation of Rs. 1,75,000/- from the owner as well as Insurance Company. The owner of the offending vehicle has denied the allegation made by the claimant. His stand was that on the date of occurrence, the vehicle was not driven by anybody but it was parked near the South Orissa Agencies Office at M.G. Road, Jeypore and neither the owner nor the driver nor the helper of the truck was present near the vehicle when the alleged accident took place. According to him the parked truck was meddled and started backward by some unknown mischievous person and struck the deceased who un-cautiously came to the rear side of the truck and died. The vehicle was insured with the insurance Company and the amount of compensation is to be paid by Insurance Company. 5.Considering the above contentions of the parties, learned Tribunal framed as many as three issues and on consideration of the documentary as well as oral evidence adduced by the parties, has come to a definite finding that the controversy between the parties is that according to O.P.W.-1, the owner of offending vehicle and P.Ws.1 and 2, one Dhirendra Jena, who was the driver, was driving the truck whereas according to police paper the helper, T. Durga Mohan Rao, was driving the truck, who has been prosecuted. The evidence of O.P.W-1 has been disbelieved by the learned Court below on the ground that he does not know about the initiation of the G.R. Case against the helper and that he himself had taken him on bail along with the driver, but he has come to a conclusion that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver who was driving the vehicle and come to a definite finding that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and not the helper. It is further held that even if the helper was driving the truck as per police paper on record, the vehicle was entrusted by the owner to the driver having valid driving licence then also the owner is not liable but the Insurance Company is liable since the vehicle was duly insured and there was no latches on the part of the owner for entrusting the vehicle. So, in that view of the matter the Insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner and to pay the compensation amount and accordingly passed an order directing to pay a sum of Rs.59,000/- to the claimant-opposite party No.1 with interest @ 9% per annum from 15.07.1993 i.e. the date of filing of the claim petition adding respondent No.2 as a party till realization. 6.Miss. Pati stated that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay in view of the fact that at the time of occurrence the driver of the vehicle was not driving the same. She further submitted that the learned Tribunal while passing the award has lost sight of the evidence on record where it is made clear that at the relevant time, the vehicle was being driven by the helper, who had no valid driving licence and if any accident was caused during such period, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. She has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court reported in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Divisional Manager v. Sujata Arora and others, 2013 (3) TAC 29 (SC). 7.Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has thoroughly discussed the evidence adduced by the parties and has held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver. He further submitted that since the owner has entrusted the vehicle to the driver having valid driving licence which has not been disputed, but the accident was caused by somebody else without the knowledge of the owner, the Insurance Company is only liable to pay the compensation amount and not other person. Mr. Behera, further stated that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the death has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle, cannot be disturbed by the appellate Court for other reasons and more so, the compensation having been determined to be paid by the Insurance Company with which the vehicle has been insured, this Court may not entertain the appeal and reject claim made by the Insurance Company. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gina Chand 1997 A.C.J. (S.C.) 1065, Skandia Insurance Co. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the claimant-respondent has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gina Chand 1997 A.C.J. (S.C.) 1065, Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokolaben Chandravadan and others AIR 1987 (SC) 1184 , Kashiram Yadav v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. ACJ 1989 (SC) 1078, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandar Madhav Tambe ACJ 1996 (SC) 253 and Sohan Lal Passi v. P. Sesh Reddy ACJ 1996 (SC) 1044. 8.The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) is not applicable to the present context in view of the clear finding of the learned Tribunal that the driver was having a valid driving licence and therefore, the aforesaid judgment is distinguishable. 9.In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the Member, 2nd M.A.C.T. (SD), Berhampur and accordingly the appeal is dismissed. The impugned order passed by the Member, 2nd M.A.C.T. (SD), Berhampur be complied within a period of two months hence. The Statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- made by the appellant be refunded to the Insurance Company along with accrued interest to facilitate the Insurance Company to comply with this order. Appeal dismissed.