JUDGMENT : S.G. Shah, J. 1. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Ishan Mihir Patel for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr. R.G. Dwivedi for the respondent No. 2. Perused the record. 2. The appellant herein is original claimant before M.A.C.T., Valsad in M.A.C.P. No. 31 of 2012. The appellant has preferred this claim under Sec. 166 of Motor Vehicles Act ('M.V. Act', for short) claiming Rs. 3 Lacs towards compensation because of injuries sustained by him in vehicular accident, which took place on 4-12-2011. The driver of Vehicle No. DD-03H-9598 i.e. opponent No. 1 before the Claim Tribunal and respondent No. 1 herein has dashed the appellant who was going on his Motorcycle No. GJ-15-EE-3226 on his backside. Therefore, injured victim-appellant has preferred claim against driver, owner and insurer being opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively of such Truck No. DD-03H-9598. 3. Before the Tribunal, driver and owner have remained absent though served; whereas, Insurance Company has contested the claim petition contending that the driver of the Truck was not holding valid driving licence with all other legal as well as technical defence so as to avoid to pay compensation to the victim of road accident. 4. After allowing both the parties to adduce their evidence, by impugned award and judgment dated 30-12-2016, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 2,49,806/- with 7.5% interest as compensation to be paid by the driver and owner of the Truck only, and thereby, exonerated the liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the Truck by payment of compensation to the victim of road accident-appellant herein, which is practically third party to all the opponents. Therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by such exoneration of liability of Insurance Company, the claimant has preferred this appeal mainly challenging the decision of the Tribunal to exonerate the liability of Insurance Company to pay compensation. In any case, when none of the opponents have challenged the award, there is no dispute regarding nature of incident and its result, and therefore, those details are not reproduced herein since it is well described in the impugned judgment as well as in pleadings. In any case, when none of the opponents have challenged the award, there is no dispute regarding nature of incident and its result, and therefore, those details are not reproduced herein since it is well described in the impugned judgment as well as in pleadings. For exonerating the liability of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal has recorded that when Insurance Company has taken a defence that driver of the Truck was not holding valid driving licence and when neither the claimant nor the owner have come forward to prove that driver was having valid driving licence, it is to be considered as breach of policy conditions, and therefore, the Tribunal has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case between National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwalla, reported in AIR 2009 SC 208 , so also another judgment between Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shivratan Singh, however, without disclosing proper citation i.e. without disclosing the year of such decision by simply disclosing it as AIR Chhatisgarh 107. 5. However, the fact remains that unfortunately, Tribunal has failed to consider the basic principle of jurisprudence that taking a plea is not enough by any of the litigant, but any such plea or defence needs to be proved by the litigant, who is coming forward with such defence or plea. In the present case, it is a case of Insurance Company alone in its pleading that driver of the vehicle is not holding valid driving licence. Learned Advocate Mr. Dwivedi for the Insurance Company has submitted that Insurance Company has in fact taken efforts to prove such facts on record by producing several documents with list at Exh. 33, certified copy of such list and relevant documents are to be taken on record. However, perusal of such certified copy of Exh. 33 clearly discloses that though Insurance Company has produced few document on record, there was specific endorsement by the other side i.e. Advocate for the appellant-claimant that they are objecting to exhibit such documents on record as it is, and therefore, such documents cannot be admitted in evidence without proper proof or evidence regarding its existence, so also without proper proof or evidence regarding contents of such documents. The Tribunal has below such list at Exh. 33, passed an order that "Recorded, admitted documents be exhibited". The Tribunal has below such list at Exh. 33, passed an order that "Recorded, admitted documents be exhibited". Therefore, unless there is any admitted document, no documents are to be exhibited. Whereas, in list, there is endorsement as if documents at Sr. Nos. 1 to 4 in such list are exhibited as Exhs. 103 to 106 respectively. However, in absence of any evidence regarding admission of such documents in evidence on record, such documents cannot be considered as properly proved on record, and thereby, they cannot be relied upon. This may be the reason that why the Tribunal has not discussed any such document in impugned judgment and award. If we peruse such document at list 33/1 to 33/4, the document at Mark 33/2 and 33/3 are in fact letters by one Universal Detective Associates of Amritsar, who have conveyed the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company that District Transport Officer ('D.T.O.', for short) of Amritsar has given remarks on their application that licence under reference, which is produced by the appellant before the Tribunal, is not issued by such office, and hence, it is a fake one. However, verification of such documents make it clear that on one hand there is no reason for the Insurance Company to appoint a private detective to get some information from a public office like D.T.O. and on other hand, as the public authority has produced a copy of the letter by so-called private detective agency with endorsement of D.T.O. that licence is fake and forwarded it to the Insurance Company, as if there is enough evidence to confirm that licence is fake, I fail to Understand that why a nationalised Insurance Company shall engage a private detective to call for the information from a public office i.e. D.T.O. regarding validity of licence. Such information can be collected directly by local office of the Insurance Company either by addressing a letter to such D.T.O. and calling him to produce relevant information before the Court or even by calling responsible person of such office as a witness before the Tribunal with original record to prove it. Such information can be collected directly by local office of the Insurance Company either by addressing a letter to such D.T.O. and calling him to produce relevant information before the Court or even by calling responsible person of such office as a witness before the Tribunal with original record to prove it. Thereby, when there is specific provision in law to call for any person either to produce the document alone without adducing oral evidence or calling on the witness with original documents and to disclose it to the Court about the record of any Government office, the entire attempt by Insurance Company-respondent No. 3 herein is not only warranted, but in fact, such attempt goes to show that there is something fishy in all such exercise when the Insurance Company does not follow the basic principle of jurisprudence that how to prove particular facts before the Court. There is specific provision in Evidence Act so also in Civil Procedure Code that how particular fact can be proved before the Court. If such procedure is not followed, and thereafter, only because there is some endorsement as Exhs. 104 to 106 only on Mark 33/1 to 33/4 i.e. list of documents, and thereby, when there is reason to believe that even after Tribunal's order, not confirming to admit such documents on record, if such documents are exhibited on record, it is certainly irregularity in proceeding before the Tribunal, and therefore, only because such documents are exhibited by marking it as Exhs. 104 to 106, it cannot be said that it is properly proved on record so as to rely upon it for coming to any conclusion that in fact licence is fake. This may be the reason that why Tribunal has not referred such documents, but unfortunately, Tribunal has instead of asking for evidence to prove such documents relied upon the pleadings by the Insurance Company. 6. It goes without saying that in addition to calling such officer from D.T.O., Amritsar, there are simple means available to the Insurance Company to prove that driver was not holding valid driving licence, in the form of copy of statutory Form No. 54 to be issued by the investigating agency; so also charge-sheet against the driver for driving the vehicle without licence. Even if it is stated that driver has already produced the licence before the Investigating Agency, and therefore, it cannot be confirmed that whether it is a fake licence or not, the fact remains that in such cases, it was the primary duty of the Insurance Company to convey to the investigating agency that, look, a person has produced fake document before you, which is a serious punishable offence under Indian Penal Code, and therefore, in absence of following any such legal way to prove particular fact in accordance with law, the attempt by the Insurance Company would not result into any fruitful benefit in favour of the Insurance Company so as to exonerate its liability from making payment to the victim of road accident, who is otherwise third party and not concerned with the licence of the driver, who was tort-feasor. Therefore, if at all any remedy is available to the Insurance Company, in view of their pleading and an attempt to prove that licence produced by the driver before the Investigating Agency was fake, they may avail such remedy in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law, but they cannot be exonerated from making payment of compensation to the victim of road accident. In 2008 (12) SCC 426 : AIR 2008 SC 1837 between National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta Bhat, Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India has, after relying upon other decisions on the issue, while dealing with question in regard to statutory obligation on part of an owner of a vehicle with insurance policy to cover a third party risk, vis-à-vis possession of a fake licence by a driver who had been employed bona fide by owner thereof; in a claim for death of passenger travelling in three-wheeler under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; when insurer refusing its liability on ground that licence was fake held that so far as a driving licence of a professional driver is concerned, owner of vehicle, despite taking reasonable care, might have not been able to find out as to whether licence was a fake one or not and that he is not expected to verify genuineness thereof from Transport Offices and that legal set-up does not absolve insurer from liability merely on ground that licence was not genuine. Thus, ordered to pay compensation as awarded by Tribunal with liberty to recover the same from owner. 7. Thus, ordered to pay compensation as awarded by Tribunal with liberty to recover the same from owner. 7. In view of above facts and circumstances and relying upon following decisions for the principle of 'Pay and recover', the impugned order needs to be modified suitably. Therefore, the First Appeal is allowed, whereby the impugned award is modified to the extent that though Insurance Company shall make the payment of compensation to the victim of the road accident i.e. claimant, their liability is limited to that extent only, and therefore, they are entitled to recover the amount of compensation deposited or paid by them as per award from the owner of the vehicle by appropriate execution proceedings: (1) National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Challa Bharathamma, reported in AIR 2004 SC 4882 ; (2) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, reported in 2004 (2) SCC 1 ; (3) Judgment dated 6-3-2018 in Civil Appeal No. 2103 of 2018 between Singh Ram v. Nirmala, (reported in 2018 (3) SCC 800 ); (4) Judgment and order dated 27-3-2018 in Civil Appeal No. 3315 of 2018 between U.P.S.R.T.C. v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.; (5) Judgment and order dated 17-5-2018 in Civil Appeal No. 2253 of 2018 between Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (reported in 2018 (7) SCC 558 ) (6) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, reported in 2004 (3) SCC 297 : [ 2004 (2) GLR 989 (SC)] 8. In view of above facts and circumstances, the appeal is allowed, whereby, the impugned judgment and award is modified so as to make the respondent No. 3 also liable to pay the amount of compensation to the appellant-claimant, however, with a liberty to recover such amount from the driver and owner in appropriate proceedings. Considering the discussion hereinabove, all the litigants in such proceedings are free to lead appropriate evidence if they so desire to prove that either licence is fake or not i.e. genuine.