JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mahendra Dayal, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 3 inspite of sufficient service of notice. 2. The appellant-Insurance Company has challenged the award dated 26.9.2011, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Lucknow, in Claim Case No. 520 of 2008 mainly on the ground that liability to pay compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has wrongly been fastened upon the appellant Company. 3. It has not been disputed that on account of the accident which took place on 5.2.2008 at about 4.00 P.M. near I.B. Petrol Pump, Lalabagh, Lucknow, the deceased Vinod met with an accident and died. The learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of Pick Up No. U.P. 32 CN 504. The age of the deceased was 24 years and his monthly income was assessed as Rs. 3,000/- per month. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 4,15,500/- as compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The controversy is with regard to the driving license of the driver who was driving the offending vehicle. 4. The respondent No. 2 who is the owner of the vehicle had produced a copy of the driving license No. S-10398/Lko/06. The driver of the offending vehicle was Sanjay Sharma but license was not in his name. The appellant Insurance Company got the aforesaid license verified from the Regional Transport Officer Lucknow and presented a report before the Tribunal that the said license was issued in the name of Subhash Chandra s/o Moti Lal. The argument of the Insurance Company before the Tribunal was that since the license, a copy of which was filed by the respondent, was not issued in the name of the driver of the offending vehicle, therefore, it should be held that the driver had no valid license at the time of accident and the copy of the license produced by him was fake. However, the learned Tribunal observed that in the report filed by the Insurance Company with regard to verification of the license, the words Lko are missing and therefore it cannot be said that the verification report was correct. However, the learned Tribunal observed that in the report filed by the Insurance Company with regard to verification of the license, the words Lko are missing and therefore it cannot be said that the verification report was correct. The learned Tribunal found that on account of the difference in the license number, it could be safely presumed that the Insurance Company could not prove that the driver had no license and it should be presumed that he was having license. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company is that the words Lko mentioned in the driving license denote the name of the city. The license number 10398/2006 is the same as mentioned in the license as well as in the verification report. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal has wrongly presumed that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid license. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has only submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have been awarded compensation and they are entitled to get it irrespective of the fact as to who makes payment. The opposite party No. 3 who is the owner of the vehicle has not appeared inspite of service of notice. 7. It is one of the conditions of the Insurance Policy that the vehicle insured should be driven by a person having valid driving license. If the owner of the vehicle permits such person to drive the vehicle who has no license, it is a clear breach of condition of Insurance Policy. In case such a vehicle causes an accident, the Insurance Company would not be liable to indemnify the insured. Reliance has been placed upon a Supreme Court decision in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sujata Arora and others, 2013 (3) TAC 29 (SC). In this case the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the violation of condition of Insurance Policy, would exonerate the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation. If the offending vehicle is not found being driven by a person holding a valid license, the Insurance Company will not be liable to indemnify the owner. The liability to pay compensation will be of the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. 8. If the offending vehicle is not found being driven by a person holding a valid license, the Insurance Company will not be liable to indemnify the owner. The liability to pay compensation will be of the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. 8. In the present case the learned Tribunal has proceeded on a wrong assumption that the driver of the offending vehicle was having a driving license only on the ground that there was slight difference in the license number as contained in the verification report and as mentioned in the copy of the license. The learned Tribunal overlooked the fact that the words Lko only denote the name of the city while the license number was the same. The license number mentioned in the copy of the driving license was not issued in the name of Sanjay Sharma who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. Thus it will be held that the offending vehicle was being driven by a person, who was having no license at the time of accident. The effect of this would be that the liability to pay compensation will be shifted from Insurance Company to the owner. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed and the award impugned in this appeal is modified to this extent that the liability to pay compensation to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall be of the respondent No. 2 who is the owner of the offending vehicle. Since the Insurance Company has deposited the entire amount of compensation under the orders of this Court, it is provided that the Insurance Company shall have right to recover the same from the respondent No. 3 and for this, the Insurance Company may move an application before the Tribunal concerned, upon which appropriate order shall be passed by the Tribunal. 10. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the respondents that during the pendency of this appeal, the respondent No. 2 has died and the respondent No. 1 is the only legal heir left by him, therefore the amount of compensation shall be paid to the respondent No. 1.