JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Both this appeals being MAC(App) No. 48 of 2015 [Smt. Jharna Deb and Others versus Madhu Mog and three others] and MAC (App) No. 50 of 2015 [Smt. Ratna Saha and Another versus Madhu Mog and three others] are clustered for disposal by a common judgment, inasmuch as both the appeals are related to the same accident and those are structured on identical grounds. 2. These appeals are preferred by the victims of the road traffic accident which occurred on 05.12.2011 at about 9.45 pm at a place called Madhab Bari (Baskobra) when the motor bike bearing No.TR-01-H-2623 hit the persons who were, it is claimed, standing in the road side. Even the bike hit the another motor bike bearing No. TR-01-N-4967 which according to the appellants was in a stationary condition being parked in the roadside. 3. In the appeal being MAC(App)48 of 2015, the judgment and award dated 13.05.2015 delivered in T.S.(MAC)261 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala and in the appeal being MAC(App)50 of 2015, the judgment and award dated 13.05.2015 delivered in T.S.(MAC)262 of 2012 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala have been questioned primarily on the ground that income as assessed by the tribunal is not based on the proper labour wage index. However, the fundamental challenge is directed against the decision that the payment shall be made by the owners of those two vehicles and consequential exoneration of liability of the insurers. 4. The accident that occurred on 05.12.2011 and the death of one Bhuban Deb aged about 43 years in the said accident are not in dispute. Even, there is no dispute that the appellants in MAC(App)48 of 2015 are the dependent legal heirs of Bhuban Deb. Similarly, the appellants of the MAC(App)50 of 2015 are the dependent legal heirs of one Gopal Saha who died in the said accident at the age of 22 years. 5. Mr. P.S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that both the vehicles were covered by the valid Insurance and it is a pleaded case that the motor bike bearing No. TR-01-N-4967 was in a stationary condition and the accident had taken place for rash and negligent driving of the motor bike bearing no. 5. Mr. P.S. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that both the vehicles were covered by the valid Insurance and it is a pleaded case that the motor bike bearing No. TR-01-N-4967 was in a stationary condition and the accident had taken place for rash and negligent driving of the motor bike bearing no. TR-01-H-2623 which was under valid insurance coverage as provided by the National Insurance Company Limited [the respondent No.2 herein]. The other motor bike was under valid insurance coverage as provided by the Oriental Insurance Company Limited. 6. Mr. Roy, learned counsel has further submitted that the deceased Gopal Saha was aged about 22 years and he was a rod mistri (rod-bender) and the deceased Bhuban Deb, was aged about 43 years, was a mason. In both the cases, the monthly income of the deceased has been assessed at Rs.4,500/-. Both the deceased being the construction worker according to the statutory prescription, their minimum wage at the relevant point of time was more than Rs.300/- per day. Hence, the income as assessed is unreasonably low and unacceptable. 7. Mr. S. Lodh and Mr. S. Debnath, learned counsel appearing for the National Insurance Company Limited, the respondent No.2 have categorically submitted that in assessing the income of the deceased, the tribunal did not commit any error inasmuch as there is no evidentiary material in respect of their occupation. The tribunal has correctly directed that the award shall be satisfied by the owners of those two vehicles by observing as under : “It now requires decision as to who shall be liable to pay the compensation. In view of the decision issue No.1, owner of the Motor Bike bearing No. TR-01-H-2623 is liable to pay 50% of the assessed the compensation. Documents of the motor bike filed by the owner reveal that on the date of the accident, the motor bike filed by the owner reveal that on the date of the accident, the motor bike had valid registration number and it was under the insurance coverage of the National Insurance Company Limited. In view of the arguments of the learned counsel of the two companies, it requires examination whether the liability can be shifted upon the Insurance Company. Owners have not even cared to disclose whom they authorized to ride the motor cycles, let alone filing their driving licence. In view of the arguments of the learned counsel of the two companies, it requires examination whether the liability can be shifted upon the Insurance Company. Owners have not even cared to disclose whom they authorized to ride the motor cycles, let alone filing their driving licence. Driving licence of the owners of the motor bikes is not a substitute in this regard. So, the liability of satisfying the award cannot be shifted upon the Insurance Company.” 8. It is apparent that the tribunal did not hold the Motor Bike bearing No. TR-01-H-2623 as responsible for the accident. Rather, on appreciation of the evidence, it came to a definite finding that Gopal Saha with Bhuban Deb in the pillon came in a Motor Bike in the place of occurrence. PW2 [Khokan Banik], according to the tribunal is the only eye witness of the accident and he could not hold his statement made in the examination in chief. In the cross-examination, PW2 has stated that Gopal Saha was riding the bike having Bhuban in the pillon. Even from the investigation report, a different story has surfaced. According to the said report, it was a headon collision between the two motor bikes and in one motor bike Gopal Saha was the rider. The tribunal has thus clearly observed that the claimant-appellants have failed to establish that Gopal Saha and Bhuban Deb were standing in the road side when the said accident took place. On overall assessment of the evidence the tribunal has accepted that the accident was a result of contributory negligence. 9. Based on the said finding, the tribunal proceeded to assess the damage and accordingly a sum of Rs.7,54,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 08.06.2012 was awarded in favour of the appellants in MAC(App)No.50 of 2015. Similarly, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.8,62,100/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 08.06.2012 in favour of the appellants in MAC(App)No.48 of 2015. This court does not find any material in the evidence to interfere with the finding as regards the income of the deceased. Thus the only question that remains for consideration is whether the tribunal has acted illegally by directing that the award shall be paid by the owners of those vehicles. 10. Mr. This court does not find any material in the evidence to interfere with the finding as regards the income of the deceased. Thus the only question that remains for consideration is whether the tribunal has acted illegally by directing that the award shall be paid by the owners of those vehicles. 10. Mr. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has contended that in terms of the decision in S. Iyyapan versus United India Insurance Company Limited And Another reported in (2013) 7 SCC 62 the tribunal ought to have directed the insurers to pay the compensation to the appellants. For purpose of reference the relevant passages of S. Iyyapan(supra) is reproduced hereunder : 16. The heading “Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third-Party Risks” given in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Chapter VIII of the 1939 Act) itself shows the intention of the legislature to make third-party insurance compulsory and to ensure that the victims of accident arising out of use of motor vehicles would be able to get compensation for the death or injures suffered. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the persons travelling in vehicles or using the road from the risk attendant upon the user of the motor vehicles on the road. To overcome this ugly situation, the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third-party insurance is in force. 17. Reading the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is evidently clear that in certain circumstances the insurer’s right is safeguarded but in any event the insurer has to pay compensation when a valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer can defend the action inter alia on the grounds, namely, (i) the vehicle was not driven by a named person, (ii) it was being driven by a person who was not having a duly granted licence, and (iii) person driving the vehicle was disqualified to hold and obtain a driving licence. Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy.” 11. For the respondent No. 2, the decisions of the apex court in Bhuwan Singh versus M/s Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. reported in 2009 AIR SCW 2865 and Jawahar Singh versus Bala Jain and Others reported in 2011 ACJ 1677 have been relied on. In Bhuwan Singh(Supra) the apex court has enunciated the law relating to burden of proof as under : 15. Appellant herein raised a specific plea that he was not driving the vehicle and one Diwan Singh was driving the same. The said fact was within his special knowledge. Burden of proof, therefore, to prove the same was on him. He did not examine Diwan Singh. 16. The claimants in their claim petition described the appellant as owner as well as driver of the vehicle. The Insurance Company, as noticed hereinbefore, has also categorically raised the plea that the appellant was not holding a valid and effective licence. The burden of proof oridinarily would be on Insurance Company to establish that there has been a breach of conditions of the contract of insurance. In this case, however, the burden in terms of Section 106 of the Evidence Act was on the appellant. He failed to discharge the said burden. As indicated hereinbefore, not only a criminal case was pending against him, he was also charge-sheeted. 17. A finding of fact has been arrived at that he had been driving the vehicle. He in view of the pleadings raised by the Insurance Company cannot be said to have been prejudiced by non-framing of specific issue as to whether he was driving the vehicle or not. He was aware of the pleadings of the parties. He adduced evidence in that behalf. He in view of the pleadings raised by the Insurance Company cannot be said to have been prejudiced by non-framing of specific issue as to whether he was driving the vehicle or not. He was aware of the pleadings of the parties. He adduced evidence in that behalf. The Tribunal as also the High Court arrived at a finding of fact that it was the appellant who had been driving the vehicle. 18. If that be so, the question raised before us must be determined having regard to the proved facts namely as on the date of accident he was not holding any valid and effective licence. 19. In terms of Section 149 of the Act, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the awarded amount to the claimants provided the accident is covered by the terms of the policy, although the burden in respect thereof would be in the Insurance Company. 20. It is now well-settled in view of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act that facts admitted need not to be proved. 21. The question as to whether the appellant was holding valid licence or not was within his knowledge. The driver was to show that he held licence in respect of the vehicle for which he had filed an application. Filing of an application and grant thereof would therefore are prerequisite for holding a valid and effective licence.” Jawahar Singh(supra) is hardly relevant in the context and as such any reference to the same is avoided. 12. There is no substantive challenge against the finding of the tribunal that the accident occurred for headon collision and both the rider and the pillon rider died in the said accident. Hence it is not a case where the third party is the victim of the accident. In S. Yappan(Supra) the apex court has restated the principle as laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Kusum Rai reported in (2006) 4 SCC 250 that when a third party suffered damage from an accident, the insurer cannot get rid of its liability of payment even if, certain breach of the policy is asserted. In the said premise, it has been decided in S. Yappan(Supra) that even if the driver of the vehicle did not have the driving licence for driving the heavy vehicles but he had light vehicle driving licence. In the said premise, it has been decided in S. Yappan(Supra) that even if the driver of the vehicle did not have the driving licence for driving the heavy vehicles but he had light vehicle driving licence. That breach would not absolve the Insurance Company from paying the award. However in the event of the breach being proved, they would be entitled to recover the money that they paid for satisfying the award. That case does not have any resemblance with the case in hand. As such, the said principle cannot be applied. The initial burden lies with the owner to disclose the name of the person who drove the vehicle at the time of accident and to show that person had valid driving licence. In this case, both the owners have failed to discharge that burden as none of them had disclosed the names of the drivers. They have only asserted that they had valid licences for driving the motor bike. This court is constrained to observe that such disclosure is not at all relevant when the owners did not contend that they were driving the vehicle at the time of the accident. Thus, in absence of any evidence that the persons driving the vehicle had valid driving licences the Insurance Companies cannot be made liable for satisfying the award. 13. Having observed thus, this court is of the view that these appeals are bereft of merit and accordingly, those are dismissed. Send down the LCRs forthwith.