JUDGMENT : P.S. Dinesh Kumar, J. This appeal is preferred by the Insurer challenging the judgment and award dated 9-11-2010 in M.V.C. No. 6447 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Judge and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bengaluru (SCCH-18) ('Tribunal' for short), whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the claim raised under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) and held both respondents in the claim petition jointly and severally liable to satisfying the award. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that one Manjunath S. Hegde was riding his motorcycle bearing No. KA-01-EH-1159 on the 8th Cross in J.P. Nagar, Bengaluru on 18-8-2008 at about 8.45 p.m. A car bearing No. KA-05-ME-8489 coming from the opposite side dashed against the motorcycle, resulting in the rider of the motorcycle sustaining grievous injuries. He died on way to the hospital. His wife and daughter filed the instant petition claiming compensation. 3. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses have been examined including the wife of the deceased as P.Ws. 1 and 13 exhibits marked. 4. Claim petition was resisted by the first respondent by filing statement of objections dated 18-6-2009. Subsequently, the same was amended vide Court order dated 19-4-2010 by including the following: "It is humbly submitted that the II respondent has knowingly entrusted the vehicle to the driver who only fake licence to drive the vehicle and thereby he has breached the contract as he suppressed the facts and has not intimated the particulars, immediately after the alleged accident to the I respondent. Hence, the petition against the I respondent does not survive and the I respondent is not obligation to indemnify any amount to the II respondent, in the event of award being passed against him." (sic) 5. On behalf of the respondents, one witness was examined and 7 documents have been marked. 6. On consideration of the material on record, Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 16,99,456/- payable with interest at 6% p.a. Hence, this appeal. 7. We have heard Sri A.N. Krishnaswamy, learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri G.V. Shashikumar, learned Counsel for respondent 1. 8. The principle contention urged on behalf of the appellant by its learned Counsel is that the driver of the offending vehicle namely, the car did not possess a valid driving licence. Therefore, Insurer cannot be made liable to satisfy the award. 8. The principle contention urged on behalf of the appellant by its learned Counsel is that the driver of the offending vehicle namely, the car did not possess a valid driving licence. Therefore, Insurer cannot be made liable to satisfy the award. Placing strong reliance on the endorsement of the licensing authority in Hindi language made at the foot of Ex. R. 6, a letter addressed to the RTO, Allahabad by the Insurer requesting for the particulars in respect of D.L. No. N-8349/A/96 belonging to Nileshkumar (driver of the car), he contends that as per the true translation which he has obtained from a Translator, no such licence was issued by the RTO, Allahabad. He therefore submits that the Insurer is entitled for protection under Section 149(2) of the Act. Accordingly, he prays that this appeal be allowed and liability qua the appellant be set aside. 9. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent submits that though the Insurer did take a contention that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence by amending the pleadings, no efforts were made by the Insurer to discharge its burden to proving the said claim. So far as Ex. R. 6 is concerned, he submits that ne has also got the Hindi endorsement on Ex. R. 6, translated from the very same translator from whom the appellant got the translation but it does not give the same meaning as claimed by the appellant. 10. Based on the rival contentions of the parties, the following point arises for our consideration: "Whether the Insurer proves that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence to seek protection under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?" 11. Facts and this case are not in dispute. The offending vehicle has been insured by the appellant. Claim is made by the legal representatives of a victim who died in the accident which occurred when the offending car dashed against the motorcycle which the victim was riding. Thus, the claimants are third parties to the contract between the Insurer and the Insured. Initially, the Insurer contested the claim by filing statement of objections dated 18-6-2009 by making omnibus denials and putting the claimants to strict proof of averments. Thus, the claimants are third parties to the contract between the Insurer and the Insured. Initially, the Insurer contested the claim by filing statement of objections dated 18-6-2009 by making omnibus denials and putting the claimants to strict proof of averments. However, by a conscious act, after 14 months of filing the statement of objections, the Insurer got his pleadings amended by including a paragraph on 19-4-2010, which is extracted supra to contend that the owner of offending vehicle had entrusted the vehicle to a driver having a fake licence. 12. R.W. 1 has filed his evidence in the form of an affidavit on 11-6-2004. He has spoken about the licence in paragraph 4, which reads as follows: "4. On receipt of the photocopy of the driving licence of the accused driver bearing No. N/8349/A/96, from the Police Station, the I respondent sent it for verification at the end of the concerned Regional Transport Office at Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh State. On verification with the said authority, the said Authority has issued endorsement after due verification stating that, the said licence has not been issued by them. The photocopy of the said licence and the endorsement, its translated copy, along with other documents are produced. Thus there is breach of contract by the insured, as he has entrusted the vehicle to the person, who was not duly licenced to drive the vehicle and had a fake licence." In the further examination on 18-6-2010, a dateless letter-Ex. R. 6 and English translation of the endorsement contained in Ex. R. 6 were brought on record through R.W. 1. 13. During the course of the hearing in this appeal, both learned Counsel placed English translation of the endorsement contained in Ex. R. 6 for perusal. Both the appellant and the respondent have got Ex. R. 6 translated from a common translator namely "SIU Translation Centre". The translated version of the endorsement filed by the appellant reads as follows: "From the original keeping I wish to say D.L. No. N-8349/A/1610, dated 27-1-1996 To Nilleshkumar S/o Hemantei Kumar In the name of the licence is not issued from this office. 99/21/2 Licensing Authority, M.V. Dept., Allahabad" The translated version of the endorsement filed by the first respondent reads as follows: "BAJAJ Allianz Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. To The Regional Transport Authority, Allahabad Dear Sir, Regarding Account to Vehicle No............ Accident on 18-8-2008 A/c........... 99/21/2 Licensing Authority, M.V. Dept., Allahabad" The translated version of the endorsement filed by the first respondent reads as follows: "BAJAJ Allianz Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. To The Regional Transport Authority, Allahabad Dear Sir, Regarding Account to Vehicle No............ Accident on 18-8-2008 A/c........... Our Claim No....... Date of issue 27-8-1996 A claim for accident to the above referred vehicle is pending with is for want of verification of the following documents: 1. Driving licence particulars of Nilesh Kumar D.L. No. N-8349/A/96 Place: Shivastava - Investigator We shall request you to arrange to supply us the particulars in respect of above on Form 54 or stamp paper to the bearer/our investigator. Thanking you, Translation from Hindi version to English version Original returned and hereby be informed that Xerox copy is produced for action and proceedings before you." There is a clear variance between the translated versions filed by the appellant and the first respondent. We therefore refrain ourselves from examining the veracity of the translation at this stage. 14. The crux of the matter in this case is whether the driver of the offending vehicle did possess or not a valid driving licence. The insurer got his pleadings amended by taking a specific stand that the licence of the driver was a 'fake' one. Therefore, the burden was upon the Insurer to prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid licence to seek immunity under Section 149 of the Act. But for a statement in the statement of objection and deposition of R.W. 1, the appellant-Insurer has not made any efforts to conclusively establish that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. Even in this Court, the translated version produced by both learned Counsel do not match. Translation is not by any authorised or Government agency. There is clear variance between both versions of translation. 15. The object of the Act is intended to place the claimant in the same position as he was before the accident. Unfortunately, in the instant case, the said object cannot be achieved inasmuch as the victim died in the road traffic accident. The least that can be done is to compensate the claimants-legal representatives with adequate compensation m accordance with law to mitigate the loss. 16. The contract is between the insurer and the insured. Unfortunately, in the instant case, the said object cannot be achieved inasmuch as the victim died in the road traffic accident. The least that can be done is to compensate the claimants-legal representatives with adequate compensation m accordance with law to mitigate the loss. 16. The contract is between the insurer and the insured. Insurer is entitled to plead that he be absolved from the liability in such contingencies which are enumerated in Section 149(2) of the Act. In the instant case, but for a pleading and an oral statement of R.W. 1 on behalf of the insurer, there is nothing tangible on record which would entitle the insurer the benefit of immunity under Section 149(2) of the Act. Accident has occurred on 18-8-2008. The claimants are the wife and daughter of the deceased. They were aged 25 and 2 years, respectively as on the date of filing of the petition. The factum of the accident, the death of the victim in the accident and involvement of car are not in dispute. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the appellant is not entitled for any relief in this appeal. Consequently, no exception can be taken to the judgment and award passed by the Trial Court. 17. Appeal fails and accordingly stands dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the appellant-insurer to work out his remedy to recover the award amount paid to the claimants from the owner of the car, if so advised. Ordered accordingly.