JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Both appeals have arisen out of the same accident and the same judgment rendered by the learned Tribunal on 17.3.2009, hence being interconnected together are taken up for adjudication by this single judgment. 2. AO No. 206/2009 has been preferred by the insurer challenging the judgment of fastening the liability on the company to satisfy the award, while the AO No. 168/2009 has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle Smt. Vimlesh against the operative portion of the impugned order conferring the recovery right to the insurance company against her. 3. Accident occurred on 29.12.2006 at 8 AM in Dehradun city roads when a Vikram Tempo bearing no. UA07G-6828 carrying 12 passengers overturned due to rash and negligent driving of its driver Mohd. Salim. As a consequence, among others, Raj Kishor Sahani, a youth of 34 years, lost his life. So, his dependants instituted the MACT No. 47/2007, which was accepted and compensation of Rs.3,67,000/- along with 6 per cent annual interest with effect from the date of filing of the petition was granted. The liability was fastened on the insurer, but with recovery rights against the owner of the vehicle. 4. Learned Counsel on behalf of insurance company has strenuously argued that the driver Mohd. Salim’s driving licence, which was submitted during the course of trial, was later on found to be false/fake, as has been reported by the investigator. 5. It is pertinent to mention that all entries of the driving licence, which was submitted during the course of trial by the respondents, were believed and those entries, in the first sight, were enough in the ordinary course to inspire the confidence of any person to be true in nature and so might had happened with the vehicle owner Smt. Vimlesh at the time of providing employment to the driver on the Vikram Tempo concerned. In this regard, the legal position has been explained time and again even by the Hon’ble Apex Court. A decade ago, the case of National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , was adjudicated elaborately dealing each and every aspect of the validity of the driving licence. In this regard, the legal position has been explained time and again even by the Hon’ble Apex Court. A decade ago, the case of National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , was adjudicated elaborately dealing each and every aspect of the validity of the driving licence. Regarding the fake licence, it was held that a fake or forged licence is as good as no licence, but the insurer must prove that the owner was guilty of wilful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance. The defence to the effect that the licence held by the person driving the vehicle was a fake one, would be available to the insurance companies, but whether despite the same, the plea of default on the part of the owner has been established or not and whether the insured did not take adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness or otherwise of the licence held by the driver would be a question which will have to be determined in each case. 6. It is not the case of the insurance company that before or immediately after accepting the premium of the insurance and issuing the cover note, an effort was made to know the particulars of the driver and about holding the valid driving licence by him. No caution was issued by the insurance company asking the owner of the vehicle to check and verify the veracity of the driving licence as a condition precedent for providing the insurance cover to the vehicle concerned. So, in Swaran Singh’s case (supra), it was held that although driving of a vehicle without valid licence is an offence unless he holds an effective licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle. If he does not have the effective driving licence, he is punishable under the Act, but such a notion is completely on different footing than the person who is “duly licensed”, as envisaged under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The words “effective licence” used in Section 3, therefore, cannot be imported into Section 149(2) of the Act. 7. If he does not have the effective driving licence, he is punishable under the Act, but such a notion is completely on different footing than the person who is “duly licensed”, as envisaged under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The words “effective licence” used in Section 3, therefore, cannot be imported into Section 149(2) of the Act. 7. This situation was again clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court itself in case of Lal Chand v. Oriental Insurance Company, (2006) 7 SCC 318 , wherein it was held that where licence of driver subsequently found to be discrepant, in that case, if prior to appointing of the driver as such, owner of the vehicle having seen and examined his driving licence and, after taking the test of his driving, having found him competent to drive the vehicle, in such circumstances, the Apex Court opined that notwithstanding the fact that the licence of the said driver was later found not to have been issued by the licencing authority of the place concerned, even then, the Tribunal should not held the breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) M.V. Act. It was further held out that in such situation, insurer is not entitled to recover the amount of compensation paid by it for the motor accident caused by such driver. 8. Further, in case of Pepsu Road Transport Corporation v. National Insurance Company, (2013) 10 SCC 217 , the Hon’ble Apex Court clarified the position as under : “In a claim for compensation, it is certainly open to the insurer under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. Once such a defence is taken, the onus is on the insurer. But even after it is proved that the licence possessed by the driver was a fake one, whether there is liability on the insurer is the moot question. As far as the owner of the vehicle is concerned, when he hires a driver, he has to check whether the driver has a valid driving licence. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. Thereafter he has to satisfy himself as to the competence of the driver. If satisfied in that regard also, it can be said that the owner had taken reasonable care in employing a person who is qualified and competent to drive the vehicle. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving licence with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. However, the situation would be different if at the time of insurance of the vehicle or thereafter the insurance company requires the owner of the vehicle to have the licence duly verified from the licensing authority or if the attention of the owner of the vehicle is otherwise invited to the allegation that the licence issued to the driver employed by him is a fake one and yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter regarding the genuineness of the licence from the licensing authority. That is what is explained in Swaran Singh’s case (supra). If despite such information with the owner that the licence possessed by his driver is fake, no action is taken by the insured for appropriate verification, then the insured will be at fault and, in such circumstances, the Insurance Company is not liable for the compensation.” 9. Both these precedents were relied by me as well herein this Court while delivering the judgment in Oriental Insurance Company v. Keshav Ram & Others, 2015 (1) U.D. 113 , and there is no reason to deviate from such trite until and unless some otherwise law is produced before the Court. 10. Moreover, whatever was procured by the surveyor of the insurance company from the ARTO Office on form 54 is appears to have been written in a very casual manner under the illegible signature and no effort was made to get such report proved by calling any official or officer from the ARTO Office, rendering an opportunity to the opposite party for the cross-examination. 11. Next argument submitted on behalf of the insurer is that the vehicle was carrying 12 passengers, while in the registration certification the maximum capacity of such vehicle was to carry 7 passengers only. 12. 11. Next argument submitted on behalf of the insurer is that the vehicle was carrying 12 passengers, while in the registration certification the maximum capacity of such vehicle was to carry 7 passengers only. 12. On this question also, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding of the Court below because this averment was not raised by the insurance company at the time of filing the written statement and neither any issue was framed nor any effort was made to get it reliably proved during the course of evidence that the vehicle was carrying the passengers beyond its permissible limit. 13. In view of what has been set forth above, I find no force in the AO No. 206/2009 filed by the insurance company and I dismiss it. On the other hand, AO No. 168/2009 filed by the vehicle owner Smt. Vimlesh is hereby allowed. 14. Registry shall remit the amount of compulsory statutory deposit made in both the appeals, along with the interest it has earned, to the Tribunal concerned. Amount deposited by Smt. Vimlesh, as directed by this Court at the time of admission of her appeal, and the sum of compulsory statutory deposit made by her shall be returned to her along with the interest which these deposits earned during the pendency of appeal. 15. Amount deposited by the insurance company shall be released in favour of the claimants as per their respective shares and without asking for any surety/security from them. Master Awdesh Kumar and Km. Koshila now have attained the age of majority. So, the amount of their respective share shall be released in their names. Master Ram Vikash is at the verge of attaining the age of majority. Compensation of his share shall be released no sooner he becomes major. If the father of the deceased has died, then the amount of his share shall be released in favour of Smt. Chanda Devi. 16. Let the LCR be sent back.