JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises out of Judgment/Award dated 19.09.2012 (modified on 10.10.2012), passed by learned District Judge-VI-cum-MACT, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Suit No.60 of 2008, whereby and where under, learned Tribunal has been pleased to allow the claim application of the claimants and has held that the appellant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 13,18,100/- with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing of the application in-spite of the fact that the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. 2. The facts of the case as per the claim application is that claimants are legal heirs of the deceased Pintu Yadav @ Jai Prakash Yadav. On 14.01.2008 at about 6:30 pm, the deceased and his brother in law were coming from Tetulmari to Dhanbad by driving their respective motorcycles and the driver of the offending Tanker bearing Regn. No. BR-10H 8452 lost control over the said Tanker due to rash and negligent driving and as a result of which, dashed the same against the Hero Honda C.D. Delux Motorcycle bearing Regn. No. JH 10 P 2699 which was being driven by the deceased and in consequence thereof, the deceased along with his motorcycle fell down and crushed under the wheels of the said tanker sustained grievous injuries. When the deceased was being taken to the hospital, he died on the way. At the time of alleged accident, the deceased was aged about 27 years. The deceased was working as a driver and was sole bread earner of the family and all the petitioners were dependents upon his income. An FIR bearing No.02/08 under Section 279/304-A IPC was registered at Jogta (Loyabad) Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle. 3. The Insurance Company had filed his detailed written statements whereas Respondent No.1, owner of the offending Tanker filed reply of Show Cause and submitted that the offending Tanker bearing Regn. No. BR-10 H 8452 did not meet with any accident and was fully insured with respondent No. 2 vide Policy No. 210300/31/07/02/00000946 covering the period w.e.f. 28/12/07 to 27/12/2008. The Insurance Company/appellant also filed its written statement and took various preliminary objections. No. BR-10 H 8452 did not meet with any accident and was fully insured with respondent No. 2 vide Policy No. 210300/31/07/02/00000946 covering the period w.e.f. 28/12/07 to 27/12/2008. The Insurance Company/appellant also filed its written statement and took various preliminary objections. It is stated that no accident took place with the alleged offending vehicle and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party as the driver of the offending tanker and the owner of the motorcycle were not impleaded in the array of the respondent. It is further stated that respondent-insurance company is protected u/S 147 and 149 of the M.V. Act. However, in para 17 of the written statement, it is admitted that the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.2 at the relevant time. It is further stated that the driver of the motorcycle i.e. the deceased was solely at fault and accident in question happened due to his mistake. 4. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties, framed following issues. (I)Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ? (II) Whether the plaintiffs have cause of action for the present suit ? (III)Whether the deceased Pintu Yadav @ Jai Prakash Yadav died in a motor vehicle accident as claimed by the plaintiffs ? (IV)Whether the deceased died due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Tanker bearing Regn. No. BR 10 H 8452 ? (V) Whether this is a case of contributory negligence ? (VI)Whether there was breach of terms of conditions of the contract of insurance between the defendants ? (VII) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief claimed ? (VIII)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for any other relief or reliefs ? 5. After examining records of the case, learned Tribunal discussed the issues in details and claim application filed by the claimants has been allowed by awarding a sum of Rs.13,18,100/-(Rs. Thirteen Lakh Eighteen Thousand One Hundred only) in favour of the claimants along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization along with the cost of the suit which was quantified at Rs. 7,000/-. The Insurance Company was further directed to pay the aforesaid amount within a period of two month from the date of award. In the instant appeal, the correctness of the said impugned Award has been assailed. 6. Mr. 7,000/-. The Insurance Company was further directed to pay the aforesaid amount within a period of two month from the date of award. In the instant appeal, the correctness of the said impugned Award has been assailed. 6. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company has assailed the impugned Judgment mainly on the ground that the insured in spite of having been called upon to produce the Driving Licence and other vehicular documents, did not produce the same and as such, there has been violation of Section 149 (2) as well as the terms and conditions of policy and hence, the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability for payment of compensation. Learned Tribunal has failed to consider the aforesaid aspect and directed the insurer to indemnify the insured. Learned counsel further argues that the learned Tribunal has failed to consider that the Insurance Company cannot prove ‘negative’ in absence of any driving licence/details of driver. Once a specific plea is taken by the Insurance Company and Driving Licence is called upon to be produced and the same is neither controverted nor produced to shift onus, the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with the liability to pay compensation. Learned counsel further argues that it was a case of contributory negligence and only on testimony of PW3, who is /was an interested witness being brother in law, his testimony ought not to have been accepted blindly. Learned counsel further argues that the learned Tribunal has erred in not considering the fact that since the driver of the motorcycle had died, he could not be charge-sheeted in any manner and as such, no reliance could have been placed upon the charge-sheet to the said score. Learned counsel further submits that it is a fit case where there is apparent violation of terms of Insurance Policy and as such the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Learned counsel submits that in the circumstances, this appeal may be allowed by setting aside impugned Judgment and Award. Learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. O. Anthony V. Karvarnam, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748 . Learned counsel further places heavy reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Learned counsel has relied upon the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. O. Anthony V. Karvarnam, reported in (2008) 3 SCC 748 . Learned counsel further places heavy reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh, reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 and submits that Insurance Co. may be directed to pay the entire amount, subject to recovery from the owner. 7. Mr. M.B. Lal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no. 1 to 7 submits that the claimants have lost the earning member of the family and are entitled for the claim, as has been held by the learned Tribunal. It is not a case of contributory negligence as charge sheet has been submitted and case was found to be true. In this regard, learned counsel has drawn attention of this court towards Judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Gayanti Devi, reported in (2008) 2 JLJR 66. Learned counsel further argues that compensation assessed on the basis of notional income of the deceased when a specific figure was on record which was admitted by the employer is contrary to what has been held in the case of Sheela Kumari Singh Vs. M/s G.S. Atwal and Co. (Engg.) Pvt. Ltd., reported in 2004 (4) JLJR 670 . Learned counsel further argues that rightly the Insurance Co. was directed to pay the compensation amount and Insurance Co. was held to be liable and ordered to pay the compensation amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal, which clearly manifests that the driver was having a valid driving licence. 8. Mr. P.K. Deomani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.8 vehemently opposes the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and submits that the Driving Licence and its genuineness cannot be challenged at this stage as the same was already considered and decided by learned Tribunal and as such, in no way the owner is liable for payment and no order of pay and recovery may be passed. 9. 9. I have heard counsel for the parties and from perusal of the records, it transpires that after hearing both the parties, this Court vide order dated 27.01.2014 remanded back the matter to the concerned Tribunal with a direction to decide the following issues :- I. Whether the deceased was having driving license to drive a Truck or not at the time of incident ? Consequently, the income of the deceased shall also rest on the issue. II. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid license at the time of incident or not ? 10. This Court further directed that the parties i.e. the appellant-Insurance Co., Claimants and the owner of the offending vehicle, shall appear before the Tribunal within a period of 30 days from today and the Tribunal shall give opportunity to each of the parties to adduce their evidence and file documents in support of their contention and from the date of appearance, each party shall be given 30 days time to adduce their evidence and produce documents in their support so that the issues, as indicated above, must be decided within five months from today and the findings of the learned Tribunal must be communicated to this court within six months from today. 11. In compliance of the order dated 27.01.2014 passed by this Court, the claimant filed an affidavit by way of evidence and also proved the driving license of the deceased Pintu Yadav as Ext. 4A. The claimant also filed an application for summoning the DTO, Dhanbad for proving the DL particulars of deceased Pintu Yadav. Summon was sent to the DTO, Dhanbad who in turn sent a duly signed and stamped DL particulars of deceased Pintu Yadav through Speed Post, which was marked as Ext. 5. The owner of the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent No.1 also examined the driver Manoj Kumar Rai and also proved his DL particulars as Ext. R1. The matter was thereafter fixed for the evidence of the Insurance Company but despite opportunities, no evidence was adduced, hence the evidence was closed vide order dated 02.06.2014. 12. After hearing the parties and after carefully examining the records, two issues were framed by the learned Tribunal i.e. (i) whether the deceased was having driving license to drive a truck or not at the time of accident ? 12. After hearing the parties and after carefully examining the records, two issues were framed by the learned Tribunal i.e. (i) whether the deceased was having driving license to drive a truck or not at the time of accident ? (II) Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid license at the time of incident or not ? 13. Both the issues were decided in favour of the claimants vide order dated 24.06.2014 and it was observed that deceased was holding a valid driving license and was authorized to drive a heavy motor vehicle at the time of accident and it was further observed that Manoj Kumar Rai, driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving license No. 319/2000(R). DL Particulars Ext.6 issued by the DTO, Bhagalpur suggests that a DL No.319/2000 (R), type of license-Professional was issued in the name of witness (Manoj Kumar Rai) and the same was renewed firstly from 26.06.1997 to 25.06.2000 and the same was further renewed from time to time and he was also authorized to drive LMV+HMV only. Therefore, it can be comfortably inferred that Manoj Kumar Rai was a driver of Tanker No. BR 10H 8452 and he was possessing a valid driving license at the time of alleged incident and as such, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company is totally misconceived and not accepted to this Court as the driver was having a valid driving license and the vehicle was insured and rightly the insurance company was held to be liable and was saddled with the compensation amount to be paid to the claimants. As far as argument advanced by the learned counsel for the claimants regarding enhancement of claim amount is concerned, it is also not accepted to this Court as no cross appeal has been preferred by them for authenticity and genuineness of the salary of the deceased. 14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rakesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors., reported in (2016)14 SCC 219 has held as under :- 18. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving licence at the time of accident and that the Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence to prove otherwise. Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited & Ors., reported in (2016)14 SCC 219 has held as under :- 18. In our considered opinion, the Tribunal was right in holding that the driver of the offending vehicle possessed a valid driving licence at the time of accident and that the Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence to prove otherwise. This finding of the Tribunal, in our view, should not have been set aside by the High Court for the following reasons : 18.1 First, the driver of the offending vehicle (N.A.2) proved his driving licence (Ext. R-1) in his evidence. 18.2 Second, when the license was proved, the Insurance Company did not raise any objection about its admissibility or manner of proving. 18.3. Third, even if any objection had been raised, it would have had no merit because it has come on record that the original driving licence was filed by the driver in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Naraingarh in a criminal case arising out of the same accident. 18.4. Fourth, in any event, once the licence was proved by the driver and marked in evidence and without there being any objection by the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company had no right to raise any objection about the admissibility and manner of proving of the licence at a later stage [Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Premlata Shukla, reported in {reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476}] 18.5. Lastly, the Insurance Company failed to adduce any evidence to prove that the driving licence (Ext. R-1) was either fake or invalid for some reason. 19. In the light of the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the High Court was not right in reversing the finding of the Tribunal. Indeed, the High Court should have taken note of these reasons which, in our view, were germane for deciding the issue of liability of the Insurance Company arising out of the accident. 15. Accordingly, this Court holds that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and since the Insurance Company failed to prove otherwise, it was liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award. 15. Accordingly, this Court holds that the driver of the offending vehicle was holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and since the Insurance Company failed to prove otherwise, it was liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned Award. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to pay the entire compensation amount as awarded by the learned Tribunal within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Resultantly, instant appeal stands dismissed. 16. The Insurance Company is at liberty to withdraw the deposited statutory amount, if any. 17. Let the lower court record be returned to the court concerned.