JUDGMENT : I.A. No.6323/2021 This interlocutory application has been filed on behalf of the appellant, for expunging the name of respondent No.1, Fulo Devi from the array of the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that during the pendency of the instant appeal, the respondent No.1 namely Fulo Devi has died and he is unaware that she has legal heirs or not and also the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3/claimants are not aware that the deceased respondent No.1 has legal heirs and as such, for the ends of justice, the name of the respondent No.1 may kindly be deleted/expunged from the array of the parties. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants has no objection to it. This Court is fully satisfied with the cause shown in the said interlocutory application in para 5 onwards and as such, I.A.No.6323/2021 stands allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to delete the name of respondent No.1 from the array of the parties, in course of the day. Miscellaneous Appeal No. 554 of 2017 This appeal arises out of Award dated 17.09.2015, passed by learned District Judge-II-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Case No.266 of 2010, whereby and whereunder the claim application filed by the claimants under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act has been allowed and a sum of Rs.13,02,896/- was directed to be paid by the appellant-Insurance Company. 2. The original claim petition was preferred under Section 166 of the MV Act by legal heirs of deceased Paresh Chandra Manjhi for payment of adequate compensation and stating therein that on 06.09.2010, the informant alongwith deceased, who was a permanent employee in Primary Health Centre, Nirsha under the Health Department, Government of Jharkhand and other passengers were travelling with Bus bearing No.JH-10B-9466 from Govindpur to Nirsha. At about 2:00 PM, when the Bus reached near Don Bosco School, G.T. Road, Ramkanali, Nirsha, due to rash and negligent driving of the said bus, hited the Truck having Registration No.WB-25-1605 and due to this, most of the passengers sustained grievous injuries and deceased also sustained severe injuries and he died on the course of his treatment and a FIR was also registered. 3. The owner of Bus bearing No. JH-10B-9466 and Insurance Company appeared and filed their written statement. 3. The owner of Bus bearing No. JH-10B-9466 and Insurance Company appeared and filed their written statement. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal framed six issues and after examining records of the case, learned Tribunal discussed the issues in details and claim application filed by the claimants was allowed and a sum of Rs.13,02,896/- was directed to be paid by the appellant-Insurance Company, within 30 days in equal shares to the claimants, failing which the same shall carry @ 9 % simple interest P.A. from the date of filing of the claim petition to its actual payment. 4. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied by the Award dated 17.09.2015, passed by learned District Judge-II-cum-Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in Title (M.V.) Case No.266 of 2010, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 5. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that it is not in dispute that concerned vehicle was not having valid permit and driving license since the owner has not submitted the said documents before the learned Tribunal. It is the liability of the owner to produce the said documents and as such, no liability should have been fixed upon the appellant-insurer. He further submits that since admittedly the accident took place and vehicle was insured, the learned Tribunal ought have directed the Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Amrit Paul Singh & Anr. Vs. TATA AIG general, Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors., reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 and also in case of Pappu & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208 . Learned counsel further argues that the amount as per the Award has already been paid, as per the direction of this Hon’ble Court, but the interest part is very excessive, which ought to have been considered @ 6% per annum simple interest instead of 9% per annum, as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel further argues that the claimants have already received an amount to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lacs only). 6. On the other hand, Md. Learned counsel further argues that the claimants have already received an amount to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rs. Ten Lacs only). 6. On the other hand, Md. Zaid Ahmad, learned counsel for the respondent-claimants vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the compensation amount as well as interest, there is no illegality or infirmity and as such, a direction be given upon to the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the remaining awarded amount with interest. He further submits that interest of 9 % is just and proper in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in catena of decisions. 7. Nobody appears on behalf of the owner. However, earlier on 01.09.2021, it has been clearly observed by this Court that ‘there is a judicial order that notice has been validly served. Since vide order dated 15.03.2019, it has been held that notice has been validly served upon all the respondents, this Court will proceed ex-parte against the owner and driver of the vehicle, who have not put up their appearances’. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the owner of the offending vehicle has not been able to controvert points raised by the appellant/Insurance Company and negligence on their part is fully proved. The owner of the vehicle has not been able to produce either route permit or driving licence of the driver, which is violation of terms and conditions of terms of Insurance. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Pappu v. Vinod Kumar Lamba (supra), has held that : 13. In the present case, Respondent 1 owner of the offending vehicle merely raised a vague plea in the written statement that the offending Vehicle No. DIL 5955 was being driven by a person having valid driving licence. He did not disclose the name of the driver and his other details. Besides, Respondent 1 did not enter the witness box or examine any witness in support of this plea. Respondent 2 insurance company in the written statement has plainly refuted that plea and also asserted that the offending vehicle was not driven by an authorised person and having valid driving licence. Besides, Respondent 1 did not enter the witness box or examine any witness in support of this plea. Respondent 2 insurance company in the written statement has plainly refuted that plea and also asserted that the offending vehicle was not driven by an authorised person and having valid driving licence. Respondent 1 owner of the offending vehicle did not produce any evidence except a driving licence of one Joginder Singh, without any specific stand taken in the pleadings or in the evidence that the same Joginder Singh was, in fact, authorised to drive the vehicle in question at the relevant time. Only then would onus shift, requiring Respondent 2 insurance company to rebut such evidence and to produce other evidence to substantiate its defence. Merely producing a valid insurance certificate in respect of the offending truck was not enough for Respondent 1 to make the insurance company liable to discharge his liability arising from rash and negligent driving by the driver of his vehicle. The insurance company can be fastened with the liability on the basis of a valid insurance policy only after the basic facts are pleaded and established by the owner of the offending vehicle that the vehicle was not only duly insured but also that it was driven by an authorised person having a valid driving licence. Without disclosing the name of the driver in the written statement or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the copy of the driving licence produced in support was of a person who, in fact, was authorised to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability. The insurance company would become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle. 19. In the present case, the owner of the vehicle (Respondent 1) had produced the insurance certificate indicating that Vehicle No. DIL 5955 was comprehensively insured by Respondent 2 (insurance company) for unlimited liability. Applying the dictum in National Insurance Co. Ltd. [National Insurance Co. 19. In the present case, the owner of the vehicle (Respondent 1) had produced the insurance certificate indicating that Vehicle No. DIL 5955 was comprehensively insured by Respondent 2 (insurance company) for unlimited liability. Applying the dictum in National Insurance Co. Ltd. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] , to subserve the ends of justice, the insurer (Respondent 2) shall pay the claim amount awarded by the Tribunal to the appellants in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (Respondent 1) in accordance with law. 20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal and confirmed [Dhrupati v. Vinod Kumar, 2014 SCC OnLine All 16493] by the High Court shall be paid and satisfied by the insurer (Respondent 2) in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (Respondent 1) in accordance with law. 10. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra), has held that:- 24. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and Lakhmi Chand [Lakhmi Chand v. Reliance General Insurance, (2016) 3 SCC 100 : (2016) 2 SCC (Civ) 45] in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the “Tripitaka”, that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the Tribunal as well as the High Court had directed that the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle. 11. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance Company regarding 9% to 6 % per annum is concerned, this Court is not inclined to reduce the interest since the learned Tribunal has rightly awarded the interest 9% per annum. 12. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement and applying the dictum in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531 , wherein Court has held that liability of the insurance company is to satisfy decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from owner thereof, the insurer (appellant) is directed to pay remaining amount with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimants/respondent nos. Swaran Singh and others reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531 , wherein Court has held that liability of the insurance company is to satisfy decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from owner thereof, the insurer (appellant) is directed to pay remaining amount with interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimants/respondent nos. 1 and 2 in the first instance, within a period of six weeks’ from the date of receipt of copy of a copy of this order, with liberty to recover the same from owner/driver of the vehicle (respondent no. 3) in accordance with law. 13. Amount deposited, if any, by the Insurance Company shall be adjusted. Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw statutory amount deposited at the time of filing instant appeal. 14. Accordingly, instant Appeal is accordingly disposed of with aforementioned terms and conditions 15. Let the lower court record be returned to the court concerned.