JUDGMENT : A. BADHARUDEEN, J. 1. The short question that falls for consideration in this appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company is as to whether narration regarding filing of a separate charge against the owner and driver of the offending vehicle alleging commission of offences under Section 3(1) read with Sections 180 and 180(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the separate police charge against the driver, alleging commission of IPC offences, is sufficient evidence to hold that the driver did not possess a valid Driving Licence at the time of accident? 2. Briefly stated, this case emanated, when the original petitioners approached the Tribunal and claimed compensation consequent to an accident occurred on 22.06.2006. In this case, respondent nos. 1 and 2 filed written statement disputing the quantum of compensation and also disputing the negligence alleged against the driver. But in the written statement, it is specifically contended that the 1st respondent was possessing a valid Driving Licence at the time of accident. 3. The 3rd respondent, insurer filed a statement admitting the policy and raising specific challenge to the effect that the driver did not possess a Driving Licence at the time of accident. 4. While passing the award, the learned Tribunal held that though the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the police had charge-sheeted the 1st respondent for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, Ext.A2 charge sheet produced before the Tribunal did not contain such portion. In view of the matter, pay and recovery right claimed by the Insurance Company was denied. 5. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company while pressing for recovery right, read out a portion in Ext.A2 police charge-sheet stating that since the driver did not possess a valid Driving Licence at the time of accident a separate charge under Section 3(1) read with Sections 180 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed. Reading Ext.A2 charge sheet, no allegation as to commission of offences under Section 3(1) read with Sections 180 and 181 covered to be gathered as observed by the Tribunal. But Ext.A2 recites that a separate charge under Section 3(1) read with Sections 180 and 181 had been filed against the driver and the owner. The company did not produce the said separate charge either before the Tribunal or before this Court. 6. But Ext.A2 recites that a separate charge under Section 3(1) read with Sections 180 and 181 had been filed against the driver and the owner. The company did not produce the said separate charge either before the Tribunal or before this Court. 6. In this case, the owner and driver filed written statement and submitted before the Tribunal that the driver possessed a valid Driving Licence at the time of accident. But no valid Driving Licence produced before the Tribunal to substantiate this contention. In this context it is pertinent to mention that, in the present case Company raised specific contention to the effect that the driver did possess a valid Driving Licence from 06.02.1996 to 05.02.1999 to drive an autorickshaw and the said licence was not renewed thereafter, though 30 days time alone is permissible to renew the licence. Admittedly, the accident was on 22.06.2006. This contention requires appreciation in view of the narration in Ext.A2 charge positing filing of a separate charge under Section 3(1) read with Sections 180 and 181 of MV Act, in the absence of any other contra materials to hold otherwise. Since Ext.A2 espouses filing of a separate charge alleging absence of driving licence to the driver at the time of accident the said recitals can be given reliance to find that driver did not possess a valid driving licence on the date of accident. On the specific question as to mentioning of filing of a separate charge under Section 3(1) r/w S.180 and 181 of M.V. Act in the separate police charge against the driver, there is no reason to doubt such recitals to hold that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, though production of the separate charge under the relevant penal provision to be held as more authoritative. 7. Be it so, the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that no evidence to find absence of Driving Licence to the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, is erroneous and is liable to be interfered and set aside. 8. 7. Be it so, the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that no evidence to find absence of Driving Licence to the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, is erroneous and is liable to be interfered and set aside. 8. Consequently, the appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company stands allowed and it is held that the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company can recover the amount covered by the award along with the accrued interest thereof after depositing the same in the name of the original petitioners as directed by the Tribunal. 9. Now a vital issue requires consideration. While dealing with O.P. (M.V.) matters, normally recovery right would be granted in favour of the Insurance Company upholding the contention raised by the Company attributing violation of policy conditions; viz. absence of valid and effective Driving Licence, Fitness Certificate, Badge, Permit etc. based on police charge alleging commission of offences for the same and sometimes by taking adverse inference against the owner or the driver after they failed to produce Driving Licence, Fitness Certificate, Badge, Permit etc. even after specific directions by the Tribunal on the application of the insurer. However, after passing awards granting recovery right, the driver and the owner as the case may be, who did not care to produce Driving Licence, Fitness Certificate, Badge, Permit etc. before the Tribunal would notice that grant of recovery right finding violation of policy condition by the Tribunal for non production of these documents would be erroneous, as they are having possession of the said document/documents. This situation leads to the remedy invariably by way of appeal before this Court, since the limited power of review available before the Tribunal found to be not functional to address the grievances. It is for this reason many appeals of such nature are pending before this Court. I am of the view that if the Tribunals while passing right of recovery for the absence of Driving Licence, Fitness Certificate, Badge, Permit etc. makes an order to the effect that in case the driver or the owner produce Driving Licence, Fitness Certificate, Badge, Permit etc. during recovery proceedings Tribunal can consider the sanctity of the documents with due notice and hearing to the counsel for the Insurance Company and reverse the order of recovery by the Tribunal itself. 10. makes an order to the effect that in case the driver or the owner produce Driving Licence, Fitness Certificate, Badge, Permit etc. during recovery proceedings Tribunal can consider the sanctity of the documents with due notice and hearing to the counsel for the Insurance Company and reverse the order of recovery by the Tribunal itself. 10. That apart, such a speaking order can be passed in appeals by this Court also to avoid filing of subsequent proceedings before this Court to amplify the number of proceedings before this Court. 11. Accordingly, it is ordered that the right of recovery granted herein is liable to be revisited by the Tribunal while proceeding with execution proceedings for recovery of the amount, if the driver or the owner of the offending vehicle produce effective Driving Licence to the satisfaction of the Tribunal concerned after notice and providing opportunity of hearing to the counsel for the Insurance Company. On satisfying possession of valid and effective driving licence by the driver of the offending vehicle, the Tribunal can record the said fact and ignore the recovery hereby granted and close the execution proceedings without proceeding further to recover the amount in view of this judgment. 12. Registry of this Court is directed to forward copies of this judgment to all Motor Accident Claims Tribunals and additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals of the State for compliance of this judgment with reference to paragraphs 9 and 11, herein after. 13. This appeal stands allowed as above.