JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Since all the connected appeals lay challenge to award dated 21.11.2016, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. and proceedings in all the cases have arisen from one accident, same were being heard together and now are being decided vide instant common judgment. 2. For having bird's eye view of the matter and for the completion of facts, facts of FAO bearing No. 124 of 2017 titled United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Tanuja & others, are being taken note of. 3. Above captioned appeals under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, lay challenge to impugned award dated 21.11.2016 in MAC Petition No. 60-S/2 of 2007, titled Smt. Tanuja & another vs. Smt. Shiv Kumari & others, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P., whereby tribunal below while allowing the claim petition having been filed by claimants under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'Act') saddled appellant/Insurance Company with liability to pay compensation to the claimants on account of death of persons namely Rama Nanda and Narender and injuries to claimant Suresh Kumar being insurer of the vehicle bearing No. HP18A-0123, owned by Smt. Shiv Kumari, respondent No. 1. 4. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record are that on 26.11.2006, at about 10:00 A.M., vehicle bearing No. HP18A-0123, owned by respondent No. 3 Shiv Kumari, being driven by respondent No. 4, Sandeep Kumar and insured with appellant/Insurance Company, met with an accident, as a consequence of which, two persons, namely, Rama Nand and Narender died, whereas, person namely Suresh Kumar suffered multiple injuries. Allegedly, on the date of accident, vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 4, Sandeep Kumar, but when vehicle reached near village Sajnada at Nerwa-Chopal Highway, respondent No. 4, stopped the car by side of the road on the curve and went towards the hill side to answer the call of nature, unfortunately, vehicle slipped into gorge, as a consequence of which, two persons namely Rama Nand and Narender died and third person Suresh Kumar, who had also come out of the vehicle, suffered injuries while making attempt to stop the vehicle. Claimants of deceased Rama Nand and injured Suresh Kumar, preferred petition(s) before MACT, Solan, whereas, LRs of deceased Narender filed MACT petition before MACT, Shimla. Claimants of deceased Rama Nand and injured Suresh Kumar, preferred petition(s) before MACT, Solan, whereas, LRs of deceased Narender filed MACT petition before MACT, Shimla. All the claimants as detailed hereinabove, claimed before Tribunals below that accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of respondent No. 4, Sandeep Kumar, whereas, respondent No. 2, Shiv Kumari, owner of ill-fated vehicle, claimed that she had already sold the vehicle to a person namely Dharmender Sharma, respondent No. 5 and as such, she is not liable to pay any compensation. Appellant/Insurance Company claimed before Tribunals below that at the time of accident, vehicle was being driven by injured Suresh Kumar and not by Sandeep Kumar and as such, it is not liable to indemnify the insured. 5. Besides above, appellant/Insurance Company also claimed that driver of the vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence and at the time of alleged accident, vehicle was being driven in violation of terms and conditions contained in the insurance policy and as such, it cannot be saddled with the compensation, if any, to be paid to the claimants. Learned MACT, Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, vide award dated 31.03.2011, passed in Case No. 32TC/2 of 2007, awarded sum of Rs. 11,50,000/-, along with interest @ 7½ per annum from the date of institution of the petition, till payment in favour of claimant Suresh Kumar, on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident. Apart from above, learned MACT, Solan also allowed claim petition having been filed by LRs of deceased Rama Nand and vide award dated 31.03.2011, awarded sum of Rs. 14,60,000/-, from the date of institution, till payment in favour of claimants, to be paid by the appellant/Insurance Company. MACT, Shimla, vide award dated 30.08.2011, passed in MAC No. 60-S/2 of 2007, allowed the claim petition having been filed by LRs of deceased Narender and awarded sum of Rs. 6,72,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of institution till payment to be paid by the appellant/Insurance Company. Appellant/Insurance Company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the awards passed by MACT, Solan and MACT, Shimla, in petitions as detailed hereinabove, filed appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act before this Court, bearing FAO Nos. 343, 344, 425 of 2011 & 7 of 2012. Appellant/Insurance Company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the awards passed by MACT, Solan and MACT, Shimla, in petitions as detailed hereinabove, filed appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act before this Court, bearing FAO Nos. 343, 344, 425 of 2011 & 7 of 2012. Since, all the appeals detailed hereinabove, had arisen from one accident, Court clubbed all the appeals and decided the same vide common judgment dated 26.08.2016 and remanded all the appeals to MACT, Shimla to decide the following issues:- i) Whether the offending vehicle, at the time of accident, was being driven by Sandeep Kumar or by Suresh Kumar? ii) Who is to be saddled with the liability? 6. Pursuant to aforesaid directions issued by this Court vide judgment dated 26.08.2016, all the claim petitions having been filed by claimants, as detailed hereinabove, came to be decided by MACT, Shimla, vide supplementary award dated 21.11.2016, wherein Tribunal below returned the specific finding that at the time of alleged accident, vehicle was being driven by Sandeep Kumar, respondent No. 4 and not by Suresh Kumar. Since, Tribunal below found vehicle to be driven by Sandeep Kumar at the time of alleged accident, it saddled appellant/Insurance Company with liability to pay compensation. In the aforesaid background, appellant/Insurance Company by way of instant appeals has approached this Court, praying therein to quash and set aside the impugned supplementary award dated 21.11.2016, passed by learned MACT, Shimla. 7. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the material available on record, vis-à-vis, reasoning assigned by learned MACT, Shimla in its supplementary award dated 21.11.2016, this Court finds that precisely challenge has been laid to the supplementary award impugned in the instant proceedings on the following grounds:- 1. Learned Tribunal below has erred in returning the findings that vehicle in question was being driven by respondent No. 4 Sandeep Kumar because in FIR, it stood recorded that vehicle at the time of alleged accident was being driven by injured Suresh Kumar? 2. Tribunal below has failed to take note of statement given by PW-6 Hari Ram, father of Suresh Kumar that at the time of accident, Sandeep Kumar was not present in the vehicle, rather he had gone to answer the call of nature? 3. 2. Tribunal below has failed to take note of statement given by PW-6 Hari Ram, father of Suresh Kumar that at the time of accident, Sandeep Kumar was not present in the vehicle, rather he had gone to answer the call of nature? 3. Since, respondent No. 4 Sandeep Kumar, was not having valid driving licence, Tribunal below, could not have held appellant/Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation? 8. Since, there is no dispute with regard to date, timing and place of the accident, there appears to be no reason for this Court to take note of the same, especially, when factum qua the same already stands taken note of in earlier part of the judgment. Similarly, there is no dispute qua the quantum of compensations awarded by Tribunals in their earlier awards, which otherwise have been upheld by this Court in its earlier judgment dated 26.8.2016 passed in FAO Nos. 343, 344, 425 of 2011 and 7 of 2012 and as such, this Court finds no necessity to look into that aspect of the matter in the instant proceedings. In the present proceedings, Court is only required to see "whether findings returned by Tribunal below in supplementary award dated 21.11.2016 that at the time of alleged accident, vehicle was being driven by respondent No. 4, Sandeep Kumar, is based upon proper appreciation of evidence or not?". 9. Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Ishan Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellant/Insurance Company, while referring to FIR, Ext. PW-2/A, vehemently argued that Suresh Kumar has been shown as driver of ill-fated vehicle. He further argued that on the basis of aforesaid FIR, Suresh Kumar was put to trial, wherein subsequently, though he was acquitted, but there was no occasion for learned MACT below to arrive at a conclusion that vehicle in question was being driven by respondent No. 4, Sandeep Kumar. 10. He further argued that on the basis of aforesaid FIR, Suresh Kumar was put to trial, wherein subsequently, though he was acquitted, but there was no occasion for learned MACT below to arrive at a conclusion that vehicle in question was being driven by respondent No. 4, Sandeep Kumar. 10. True it is that perusal of FIR as detailed hereinabove, reveals that after alleged accident, it was disclosed to the police that ill-fated vehicle was being driven by Suresh Kumar, but such fact was disclosed by PW-1 Yash Pal, Patwari, who during criminal trial deposed that at the time of alleged accident, he was not present on the spot, rather he was sitting in the office and on the basis of information given by one lady, he had informed the police that some vehicle has met with accident and on inquiry it was found that the vehicle was being driven by person namely Suresh Kumar. Interestingly, aforesaid person Yash Pal, who was examined as PW-3, has not supported the case of appellant/Insurance Company. He deposed that in the month of November, 2006, he was posted at Khagna, which is adjoining to village Sajnala. He deposed that on 20.11.2006, he was present in his office and at about 10.30 P.M., accident had taken place at Sajnala involving vehicle No. HP18A-0123. He deposed that he saw vehicle rolling down in the gorge, thereafter he reached the spot. He deposed that three persons were found in the vehicle namely Rama Nand, Narender and Suresh. Rama Nand had died on the spot, whereas, Narender and Suresh were found injured. He deposed that thereafter, he informed his seniors about the accident as well as to the police. Consequently, Tehsildar and police reached the spot and injured were brought to Civil Hospital, Chopal from where they were referred to IGMC, Shimla. Though this witness has stated that accident occurred due to negligence of driver, but he has failed to give the name of the driver. In his cross-examination, this witness deposed that he cannot say due to whose negligence, the accident in question took place nor he can depose about the persons who were present in the vehicle. 11. PW-6 Hari Ram while tendering his evidence by way of affidavit, disclosed therein that respondent No. 4, Dharmender Kumar had offered to sell his car bearing No. HP-18A-0123. 11. PW-6 Hari Ram while tendering his evidence by way of affidavit, disclosed therein that respondent No. 4, Dharmender Kumar had offered to sell his car bearing No. HP-18A-0123. The Negotiations took place at Solan in the month of October, 2006. Before purchasing the car, he wanted to satisfy himself about the condition of the vehicle, and as such, he deputed Sandeep Kumar as driver and requested respondent No. 4 to handover the vehicle to him. Consequently, on 24.11.2006, his son alongwith his friend had gone to Kiari. Respondent No. 2, Sandeep Kumar was requested to bring the car from Kiari. On 25.11.2006, Sandeep Kumar stopped the vehicle at the place and the same met with an accident. In his cross-examination, this witness has denied all the suggestions put to him by learned counsel for the respondents. 12. While referring to statement made by aforesaid witness, i.e. PW-6, Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, representing the appellant/Insurance Company, argued that once this witness has stated factum with regard to vehicle being driven by Sandeep Kumar, Tribunal below erred while concluding that vehicle in question was being driven by Suresh Kumar. However, this Court finds no force in the aforesaid statement of Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Ishan Sharma, for the reasons that PW-5 Hari Ram, though stated that he had deputed Sandeep Kumar to bring car from Kyari on 25.11.2006 and he had stopped the vehicle at a place where accident took place, but he nowhere stated that at the time of alleged accident, vehicle in question was being driven by Suresh Kumar, who also suffered injuries in the alleged accident. Once this witness has categorically deposed that he had deputed respondent No. 4 Sandeep Kumar to bring the Car from Kyari and he had stopped the vehicle at the place where vehicle met with an accident, it is not understood how it can be presumed that at the time of alleged accident, vehicle in question was being driven by Suresh Kumar and not by Sandeep Kumar. Aforesaid statement made by PW-5, Hari Ram, is further substantiated/corroborated by statement of RW-2, Sandeep Kumar, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ext. PW-1/3, wherein, he deposed that on 26.11.2006, he was on his way to Dhamandar from Kiari by driving the vehicle bearing No. HP18A-0123. Total four persons were there along with him. Aforesaid statement made by PW-5, Hari Ram, is further substantiated/corroborated by statement of RW-2, Sandeep Kumar, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ext. PW-1/3, wherein, he deposed that on 26.11.2006, he was on his way to Dhamandar from Kiari by driving the vehicle bearing No. HP18A-0123. Total four persons were there along with him. He stopped the vehicle about 4-5 K.M. short of Chopal at Sajnala curve in order to respond to call of nature. When he came back, he did not find the vehicle there. He noticed that vehicle has rolled down in the gorge. He became perplexed and fled away from the spot. As per this witness, he had parked the vehicle after taking all the precautions. 13. If statements made by RW-4 Sandeep Kumar, PW-5 Hari Ram and PW-3 Yash Pal are read in conjunction, it nowhere suggest that vehicle in question at the time of alleged accident was being driven by Suresh Kumar, rather it clearly emerge from the statements of aforesaid witnesses that Suresh Kumar was one of the occupant of the car and vehicle was being driven by Sandeep Kumar, who was specifically deputed by PW-5 Hari Ram to bring car from Kyari. Hence, in view of the above, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the findings returned by Tribunal below in its supplementary award dated 21.11.2016 that vehicle in question was being driven by Sandeep Kumar and not by Suresh Kumar. 14. Mr. Ashwani K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel, representing appellant/Insurance Company, strenuously argued that since at the time of alleged accident, Sandeep Kumar was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, appellant/Insurance Company could not be saddled with liability to pay compensation, but such plea of him, deserves outright rejection for the reasons that it never came to be proved on record by appellant/insurance Company that at the time of alleged accident, Sandeep Kumar was not holding valid and effective driving licence. RW-2, Sandeep Kumar specifically deposed before Tribunal below that he has having valid and effective driving licence. His licence is stated to have been issued by registering and licensing authority Rajgarh and its number was 79/2012. RW-2, Sandeep Kumar specifically deposed before Tribunal below that he has having valid and effective driving licence. His licence is stated to have been issued by registering and licensing authority Rajgarh and its number was 79/2012. Since Sandeep Kumar had discharged his onus by placing on record copy of licence and it subsequently came to be proved in accordance with law, onus had shifted upon appellant/Insurance Company to rebut the claim of the Sandeep Kumar that he has having valid driving licence but in the instant case, appellant/insurance Company has not been able to discharge such onus. 15. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality and infirmity in the impugned supplementary award dated 21.09.2011 and same are upheld and all the appeals being devoid of merit, fail and are dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.