JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the parties. 2. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferred against the Judgment/Award dated 22.10.2011, passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Chatra in Claim Case No. 24 of 2007 whereby and where under, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.2,43,000/- as compensation to be paid by the opposite party no.2 – New India Assurance Company Limited to the claimants within one month, failing which, the opposite party no.2 will pay interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of award till its realization. 3. The facts involved in this case in brief is that the son of the claimants succumbed to the injuries sustained in an accident caused by the truck bearing registration no. JH 09C – 0739 on 22.02.2007 at about 03:00 P.M. near village Amine at Chatra –Itkhori Road. The claimants filed the claim petition praying for compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. After notice, the opposite party no.1 – Jitendra Kumar Singh being the owner of the vehicle did not appear in the case nor filed any written statement. The insurance company in their written statement inter-alia pleaded that there is breach of condition of insurance policy as the vehicle was driven by the driver without having a valid driving license to drive the vehicle involved in the accident and the opposite party no.1 – owner knowingly allowed an unqualified person to drive the vehicle. The Tribunal altogether framed five issues. This appeal filed by the insurance company is confined to issue no.4 only which is “Was there any breach of condition of policy?”. 4. Mr. Manish Kumar, the learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal below could not properly appreciate the evidence in the record that the information furnished by the District Transport Officer, Lakhisarai, to the investigator of the insurance company mentioning therein that the driving license issued to the driver of the vehicle in question involved in accident, wherein it was categorically mentioned in item no.6, under the heading kind of license (Professional/Private) Light Motor Vehicle as well as the testimony of the investigator of the insurance company is not sufficient to establish that the driver of the said truck bearing registration no. JH 09C – 0739 was having driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicles only. JH 09C – 0739 was having driving license to drive Light Motor Vehicles only. More so, when the driver was not even impleaded as a party in the claim petition and the owner did not turn up even to contest the claim of the insurance company and the claimant did not dispute the claim of the insurance company. Hence it is submitted that the findings of the tribunal in respect of issue no.4 be set aside and it be held that the owner of the vehicle committed the breach of condition of the policy and the insurance company be absolved of its liability to pay the compensation amount by way of indemnifying the owner of the vehicle in question. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents on the other hand submitted that it is a settled principle of law that even if the policy condition is breached by the owner of the vehicle, so far as it relates to any short coming of the driving license of the driver in question, the insurance company be directed to pay the amount to the claimants with a liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the claimants-respondents further submitted that the claim amount has been paid to the claimants by the insurance company and the claimants have already received the awarded amount with the rider that 50% of the same be released in favour of the claimants by furnishing usual undertaking which they have already furnished and has received the remaining 50% of the amount to be invested in a nationalized bank by way of fixed deposit initially for a period of two years and if this miscellaneous appeal is not disposed of within two years, the said fixed deposit be renewed. 6. Having heard the rival submissions made at the bar and perusal of the record, the only point of determination in this appeal is whether the learned tribunal was proper in holding that insurance company has failed to prove breach of condition of the policy, specifically that the driver was not authorized to drive heavy motor vehicle like truck which was involved in the accident, out of which this claim for compensation has arose. 7. 7. Perusal of the record reveals that in order to prove their case, the claimants have examined four witnesses while one witness has been examined on behalf of the opposite party no.1 who proved the report under memo no. 886 dated 07.11.2009, issued by the office of District Transport Office, Lakhisarai which was marked Ext.A and investigation report proved by the investigator which has been marked Ext.B. C.W.1 – Mahmud Alam, C.W.2 – Gulam Rasul, C.W.3 – Md. Khalil and C.W.4 – Kedar Yadav have stated about the accident caused by the said L.P. Truck bearing registration no. JH 09C – 0739 driven by Nawal Paswan. None of the witnesses of the claimants has whispered anything about the driving license of the driver nor they have stated whether the driver was having a valid driving license or not. On the other hand on being proved by the O.P.W. 1, the report of the District Transport Officer, Lakhisarai has been marked as Ext.A without objection and it appears that there is no cross-examination of this witness in respect of Ext. A. Perusal of the said Ext. A, copy of which has been filed as annexure-2 in the said miscellaneous appeal reveals that the name of the license holder was Nawal Paswan who is the son of Ayodhya Paswan and the kind of license for driving issued, has been mentioned as LMV only. So in this backdrop, as the Ext.A was marked without objection, there was no cross-examination of the witness on the point of contents of Ext.A. Ext.A was addressed to the O.P.W. 1 by the District Transport Officer, Lakhisarai. The Tribunal was certainly did not act properly by disbelieving the contents of Ext.A without any specific reason and in the considered opinion of this Court, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the evidence in the record is sufficient to establish that the driver was Naval Paswan who was authorized to drive the Light Motor Vehicle only. 8. It is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in paragraph-13 in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Challa Upendra Rao, (2004) 8 SCC 517 as under “… … … Considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. In some cases the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. For the purpose of recovering the amount paid from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer…. … … …” (Emphasis Supplied) 9. In the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. V. Prabhu Lal, (2008) 1 SCC 696 in the facts and circumstances of that case when the driver had driving licence for Light Motor Vehicle and the accident occurred when the driver was driving a TATA 709 transport vehicle, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the insurance company is not liable to the compensation amount. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut reported in (2007)3 SCC 700 after analysis of law and referring to the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and Ors. ( AIR 2004 SC 1531 ) has held as under in paragraph -38:- “38. In view of the above analysis the following situations emerge: 1. The decision in Swaran Singh’s case (supra) has no application to cases other than third party risks. 2. Where originally the licence was a fake one, renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality. 3. In case of third party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised, to recover the same from the insured. 4. The concept of purposive interpretation has no application to cases relatable to Section 149 of the Act.” (Emphasis Supplied) 11. Where originally the licence was a fake one, renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality. 3. In case of third party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised, to recover the same from the insured. 4. The concept of purposive interpretation has no application to cases relatable to Section 149 of the Act.” (Emphasis Supplied) 11. Hence, under such facts and circumstances, the finding of the tribunal, in respect of issue no.4 is set aside and I hold that the owner of the vehicle being the opposite party no.1 – respondent no.3 of this appeal has breached the condition of the insurance policy to the limited extent of authorizing the driver Nawal Paswan to drive the heavy motor vehicle even though Nawal Paswan was having a valid and effective driving license to drive only a light motor vehicle and in view of the settled principle of law in Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra), the insurance company having been already paid the awarded amount to the claimant, the insurance company will have a right of recovery of the said amount from the owner of the vehicle being the opposite party no.1 – respondent no.3 of this appeal. 12. This appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent only.