JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Since, both the appeals are interconnected together and have been arisen out of the same judgment and accident, nay between the same parties, hence are being taken up together for adjudication. 2. At the outset, Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, Advocate is resisting the final hearing of these appeals withdrawing the attention of this Court towards the order dated 30.3.2016, whereby the Court postponed the hearing in the light of several judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court, for the reason that, since there is conflict in the judgment of various Division Benches of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the Constitutional Bench Judgment in Swaran Singh’s Case, hence the matter was referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constituting a Larger Bench vide judgment and order rendered on 31.8.2009 in “National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parvathneni and Another” reported in (2009) 8 SCC 785 . 3. On the other hand, learned counsel on behalf of the insurance company has insisted for adjudication for the reason that this Court should not wait for indefinite time, more so, because until the conflict is finally cleared in the judgment of some larger Bench, till then, the law laid down in Swaran Singh’s Case, being a Constitutional Bench one, is holding the reigns. 4. Learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that if these matters are kept pending for uncertain period, then the poor litigants (dependants of the deceased), leading the life in penuration, are suffering. 5. I do agree with the contention of claimants’ counsel as well as learned counsel for the Insurance Company, so, I hereby undertakes to adjudicate both these appeals. 6. The accident occurred on 08.10.2004 at 11:10 p.m., when deceased lost his life on account of dashing by the truck of M/s Solar Auto Carrier Private Ltd (owner/ appellant). The truck was comprehensively insured and was being driven by its driver-Mr. Hira Lal, who resides in District Bareilly (U.P.) as well as in Gauhati (Asaam). It seems that the head office of owner of the truck is at New Delhi. 7. Accident, insurance as well as losing of life of Mr. Sunder Singh are not disputed. The truck was comprehensively insured and was being driven by its driver-Mr. Hira Lal, who resides in District Bareilly (U.P.) as well as in Gauhati (Asaam). It seems that the head office of owner of the truck is at New Delhi. 7. Accident, insurance as well as losing of life of Mr. Sunder Singh are not disputed. In the impugned judgment, award had been passed to the tune of Rs.9,38,108/- against the owner of vehicle but he did not appear before the Tribunal and insurance company was directed to pay the compensation with a recoverable rights from the owner. 8. The insurance company has filed AO No.62 of 2009 and thereafter, on 10.9.2009, i.e. after almost one year of the impugned judgment, owner of the truck has also come up before this Court by way of filing AO No.318 of 2009 along with application seeking condonation of delay of 210 days. This delay condonation application has vehemently been opposed but in all fitness of things as well as in the interest of justice, I condone the delay of 210 days and render an opportunity to Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, Advocate for the vehicle owner to argue the case on merits, nonetheless, the owner was sufficiently served because registered envelop was sent by the Registry at his address but postman was constrained to return the same with endorsement of refusal to receive such envelop by the vehicle owner. 9. Driver-Mr. Hira Lal appeared before the Tribunal and he had also filed his written statement but did not file any paper to show the validity of driving license. Now, in A.O. No.318 of 2009, some paper is being made to show that the driver-Hira Lal was having a valid driving license. There is some endorsement of licensing authority-Motor Vehicle Department, Bareilly (U.P.) with illegible signature and without mentioning any legible date. 10. On Form No.54, which is issued under Article 150 (A)(2) of the Act, which pertains to the accident information report. This endorsement is not happily legible besides it is very much unclear on its outward appearance. It seems to be procured with forged endorsement in order to escape the liability of the award. 11. Further, no application under Order 43 Rule 17 of CPC has been moved requesting the Court to take this paper on record. This endorsement is not happily legible besides it is very much unclear on its outward appearance. It seems to be procured with forged endorsement in order to escape the liability of the award. 11. Further, no application under Order 43 Rule 17 of CPC has been moved requesting the Court to take this paper on record. Even if, the Court considers this paper, while without moving an application, as indicated above, then also, genuineness of endorsement, much less, any driving license, as such, is very much doubtful. So, this paper is not at all acceptable for this Court to shift the liability from owner of the vehicle to the insurance company. 12. In Swaran Singh’s Case, reported in 2004 (3) SCC 297 , in para 104, it was held that the liability of the insurance company to satisfy the decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver thereof has been holding the field for a long time and, apart from the reasons stated hereinbefore, the doctrine of stare decisis persuades us not to deviate from the said principle. 13. This is not a case where driver of the offending vehicle was not having a “duly licensed” but this is the case where driver was having no license, at all, otherwise, there was no reason for Mr. Hira Lal (driver) to retain that license and not to produce the same in the Court. All the same, he filed his pleadings by way of moving the written statement. 14. So, in view of what has been set forth above, I dismiss both the appeals and direct the insurance company to deposit rest of the amount in the Tribunal concerned within two months from today and thereafter, the same shall be paid to the claimants/applicants. Insurance Company shall have every right to recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle jointly and severely. 15. Compulsory statutory amount, deposited by the insurance company as well as by M/s Solar Auto Carrier Private Ltd., shall be remitted back to the Tribunal concerned. LCR be also sent back.