JUDGMENT AND ORDER : S.G. Shah, J. Heard learned advocate Mr. Nanavati for the appellant and Mr. Darji, learned advocate for respondent No.2. Perused the record. 2. The appellant is insurance company of rickshaw No. GJ-7-TT-3432 which was involved in the accident and, thereby opponent in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1340/2013 preferred by present respondent No. 2 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nadiad. In such Motor Accident Claims Petition, claimant has claimed Rs. 3,00,000/- for the injuries received by him in vehicular accident. Respondent No.1 is driver cum owner of the vehicle in question, however, though he was served, he has remained absent both; before the tribunal as well as before this Court. 3. So far as incident is concerned, it is undisputed fact that on 2.12.2013, when victim was going on his bicycle, the driver of rickshaw had came from the opposite direction in full speed and driven his rickshaw rashly and negligently and, therefore, he dashed his rickshaw to the victim which resulted into grievous injuries to the victim on his right leg, where there was fracture of tibia for which nail and screw were fixed by operative treatment. For such injuries, he has received permanent disablement and, therefore, by impugned award, tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs. 1,41,570/- on different heads as under: - [1] Rs. 35,640/- future loss of income [2] Rs. 90,130/- for medical expenses [3] Rs. 07,500/- for pain, shock and suffering [4] Rs. 03,300/- for actual loss of income [5] Rs. 05,000/- for spl. diet & attendant charges Rs. 1,41,570/- TOTAL COMPENSATION 4. For awarding such amount, the tribunal has taken Rs. 3,300/- as earning capacity of the victim and 10% disability though Doctor has certified that disability is 26%, whereas, 9 as suitable multiplier since victim was aged about 60 years. 5. Being aggrieved by above award, the insurance company has preferred this appeal on the ground that driver cum owner of the vehicle being rickshaw No. GJ-7-TT-3432 was not holding valid driving licence to drive such transport vehicle since rickshaw is a transport vehicle and produced its certificate of registration at mark 7/4. The insurance company is also relying upon Exh.50 which is information of smart card driving licence; so also Exhs.33 and 34. The insurance company is also relying upon Exh.50 which is information of smart card driving licence; so also Exhs.33 and 34. Perusal of Exh.50 makes it clear that it is incomplete document and not the correct or total disclosure of relevant government record, inasmuch as, at-least few information is not disclosed in such form though it seems to be signed by licence authority and Assistant RTO, Anand. Therefore, when insurance company is relying upon such statement as details of licence of a driver contending that it does not have an endorsement to drive transport vehicle and thereby insurance company is not liable. It is to be considered that when such document is not disclosing relevant details, there is reason to believe that non-disclosure of validity of period for transport vehicle is also improper and, therefore, though such document has been exhibited on record, in absence of proper evidence regarding contents of such document, such document cannot be relied upon as a gospel truth. 6. It seems that to prove such contention, insurance company has filed an affidavit of one Laxmansinh Gopalsinh Zala, who was serving as an Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles in RTO, Nadiad wherein he has stated that the driver cum owner of the rickshaw was not holding endorsement to drive transport vehicle. However, he has not offered himself for cross examination and, therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon and needs to be discarded. It seems that respondents have therefore filed affidavit of one another witness at Exh.54 namely; Mr. Rajesh Ranjitbhai Panchal, who was also serving as Assistant Inspector of Motor Vehicles in the RTO, Nadiad. He has also stated that driver cum owner of the rickshaw in question is not holding a licence to driver transport vehicle. However, in his cross examination, he confirms that they are not keeping the register of such information which is not believable and, therefore, such deposition cannot be relied upon as a gospel truth. Whereas at Exh.57, the witness Nikunj Maheshbhai Shukla, legal Assistant Officer of the appellant - insurance company has categorically admitted that the claim is by 3rd party and that policy of the vehicle was valid which is covering 3rd party risk and that licence of the driver was also valid. 7. Whereas at Exh.57, the witness Nikunj Maheshbhai Shukla, legal Assistant Officer of the appellant - insurance company has categorically admitted that the claim is by 3rd party and that policy of the vehicle was valid which is covering 3rd party risk and that licence of the driver was also valid. 7. In view of above facts and circumstances, on one hand, there is an attempt to prove that driver of the rickshaw was not holding valid driving licence, the available evidence on record does not confirm such fact and when appellant - insurance company has failed to call upon the driver to produce his licence and to verify that it was not having endorsement to drive transport vehicle and when permit of rickshaw is already produced on record in the name of such driver cum owner, there is reason to believe that driver was holding valid driving license. 8. However, at the most, if at all there is no valid driving licence to drive transport vehicle by the driver of the rickshaw then also as settled legal position when claimant is 3rd party, insurance company cannot be exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the 3rd party. At the most, they may be entitled to have an order to the effect that they have to pay compensation but they can recover it from the owner. In support thereof, reference of the judgment in the case of Shamanna v. The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Dated 8.8.2018 in Civil Appeal No.8144/2018 is material wherein after relying upon previous judgments, Hon'ble Supreme Court has reconfirmed the principle of pay and recover and, therefore, instead of reproducing all those previous judgment, let there be an order modifying the award so as to endorse a condition that insurance company shall initially pay the amount of compensation but in that case, they may recover the same from the owner of the rickshaw. 9. Moreover, it is pertinent to refer following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court on the issue in question : (1) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others, (2004) 2 SCC 1 (2) Judgment dated 6.3.2018 in Civil Appeal No.2103 of 2018 between Singh Ram v. Nirmala; (3) Judgment and order dated 27.3.2018 in Civil Appeal No.3315/2018 between UPSRTC v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others, (2004) 2 SCC 1 (2) Judgment dated 6.3.2018 in Civil Appeal No.2103 of 2018 between Singh Ram v. Nirmala; (3) Judgment and order dated 27.3.2018 in Civil Appeal No.3315/2018 between UPSRTC v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (4) Judgment and order dated 17.5.2018 in Civil Appeal No.2253/2018 between Amrit Paul Singh and others v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. and others. (5) Managar, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, (2013) 2 SCC 41 . 10. However, considering the facts and circumstances emerging from the record, it is made clear that owner of the rickshaw is free to take all the contentions in such recovery proceedings against the insurance company so as to confirm that insurance company is absolutely liable to indemnify him in such cases. 11. The appeal is partly allowed in above terms. Considering the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs. R & P be sent back to the Tribunal at the earliest.