JUDGMENT : Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Appellant United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has come up before this Court challenging the judgment and award dated 18.02.2011, rendered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby 50% liability, out of the total compensation awarded by the Tribunal, was fastened upon the appellant. 2. It would be relevant to reproduce the facts, disclosing the manner in which the accident occurred. Injured claimant Shamsuddeen Ansari along with his daughter boarded in the bus no.UA07K- 6917, owned by Uttaranchal Transport Corporation to make the journey from Gopeshwar to Delhi. On the highway, when such bus was swiftly moving near the town Muradnagar in District Ghaziabad, the front portion of such bus was dashed by the rear of truck no.UHQ-0441, owned by Mr. Amit Singhal (respondent no.2) being driven by Mr. Nawab Ali (respondent no.3). The peculiarity of the facts are that such truck was loaded with iron rods coming out from the rear portion at least to the extent of 8 feet in length. 3. That apart, cause of the accident mainly was that such truck hit the road divider and stuck. The bus driver could not immediately control the speed and the front portion of the bus, struck with the iron rod, as indicated above, causing serious injuries to Shamsuddeen Ansari who was occupying the front seat in the bus. He remained hospitalized and was shifted from one centre to another for a considerable time. So looking to the serious injuries besides the mental and bodily pain of the injured, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation to the tune of Rs.4.73 lakh something, 50% liability whereof has been fastened upon the Insurance Company of either of the vehicles. 4. The Oriental Insurance Company (for the bus) perhaps has not preferred any appeal. So, I presume that the compensation has been awarded by the Tribunal to Shamsuddeen Ansari, as per it’s share. But, on the other hand, the insurer of the truck has come up in the appeal for the reason that it was incumbent on the owner and driver of the truck to come forward before the Tribunal and to show the possession of driving licence with them. 5. The Tribunal has recorded a finding in the impugned judgment that they did not file their written statement, much less contesting the case or showing the driving licence, nonetheless, sufficient service upon them. 6. 5. The Tribunal has recorded a finding in the impugned judgment that they did not file their written statement, much less contesting the case or showing the driving licence, nonetheless, sufficient service upon them. 6. So, the fact remains that the valid driving licence could not be produced before the Tribunal hence, it was not presumable for the Court below that the truck was being driven with the valid driving licence. The stipulation of the Insurance Policy always warrants that the vehicle insured should be driven with a valid driving licence and none was there to show the fulfillment of such condition before the Tribunal. So, in that way the liability could not have been fastened upon the appellant (United India Insurance Co. Ltd.). 7. It is also pertinent to mention herein that at the time of filing this appeal, the appellant made an attempt to make service upon the owner and the driver. But the notices were received back because respondent no.2 (owner) was reported to have left the address, while the notice sent to the respondent no.3 did not receive back. 8. In view of what has been set forth above, I allow the appeal and thus, fasten the responsibility to pay the compensation to the extent of one half, which has been awarded by the Tribunal, on the owner and the driver of the truck, either jointly or segregately. 9. The money so deposited by the appellant in compliance of the directions of this Court dated 28.04.2011 shall be returned to the appellant along with the compulsory statutory amount, with all interest, which it has earned, as per the bank norms. 10. Compulsory statutory amount shall be returned to the Tribunal concerned. LCR be also sent back.