JUDGMENT Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. These appeal are being adjudicated as have arisen out of the same accident and two different judgments rendered by the same Tribunal on the same date i.e. 27.11.2009. 2. The accident occurred on 28.04.2008 is not disputed. The passenger Bus no.UA-12-1488 fell down in the deep gorge around 200-250 feet beneath the road, causing the death of as much as 7 persons at the spot. 3. Such vehicle was covered under the insurance granted by the I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. (appellant herein in both the appeals). The driver of the Bus was not made a party by the claimants in either of the petition but at the same time, when owner of the bus Mr. Sanjay Manral filed his written statement, he, too, did not disclose the name and address of such driver, who was employed by him to drive his bus, much less, he was not produced by the bus owner to prove that he did have a valid driving license on the relevant date and time. 4. The Company grants the insurance cover note with the condition that the vehicle shall be permitted to be driven only by the persons, who have a valid driving license. If such owner is permitted to drive his vehicle by a person, other than as indicated above, then, liability cannot be fastened upon the Insurance Company to satisfy the award, granted by the Tribunal. It has been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Sri Kesar Singh Bisht & Others,” reported in 2009 (2) U.D., 39 that if the driver of the offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license to drive the goods/commercial vehicle (transport vehicle) and the Insurance Company could not be held liable to pay compensation. 5. In yet another case of “United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Smt. Tara Devi and others,” reported in 2009 (2) U.D., 539, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has categorically held that the Legislature in the Motor Vehicles Act, nowhere intends to make the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation even in cases where it is not liable to pay under the policy. 6. Ltd. vs. Smt. Tara Devi and others,” reported in 2009 (2) U.D., 539, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has categorically held that the Legislature in the Motor Vehicles Act, nowhere intends to make the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation even in cases where it is not liable to pay under the policy. 6. Latter one precedent, as laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, was based on the ratio, as held out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) C.C. No.10993 of 2009, “National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvathneni and another,” wherein, it was held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation as there was violation of the terms of the policy and the Court found force in the submission of learned counsel of the Company for the reason that there is no law, which empowers the Tribunal to direct the Insurance Company to pay compensation after holding that the Company is not liable to pay the amount, with a liberty to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. In both the impugned judgments, the situation is alike where the Insurance Company has not been held liable because the owner of the offending Bus could never prove that such Bus was being driven by a person holding a valid driving license. Yet, it has been directed to satisfy the award with a liberty to recover it from the owner of such offending bus. 7. The contention of learned counsel for the bus owner that driver of such offending vehicle was never made a party by the claimants is not acceptable to this Court for the reason that the claimants are not supposed to explore the identity of the driver and his address at the time of filing the petition. Bus owner was the best person to disclose as to by whom his bus was being driven at the relevant time. 8. mpugned judgments are modified to the effect that the liability of granting compensation shall remain fastened upon the owner of the vehicle and not to the Insurance Company. 9. The amount, so deposited by the Insurance Company in both the appeals, shall be returned immediately to such Insurance Company at least with 3% Compound Interest (annually) from the date of deposit of such amount till the date of payment. 10. Compulsory statutory amount of Rs. 9. The amount, so deposited by the Insurance Company in both the appeals, shall be returned immediately to such Insurance Company at least with 3% Compound Interest (annually) from the date of deposit of such amount till the date of payment. 10. Compulsory statutory amount of Rs. 25,000/- shall also be returned to the Insurance Company in the same fashion. 11. In view of what has been set forth above, these appeals are allowed.