JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. K. R. Bora, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H. Buragohan, learned counsel for the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No. 3. 2. The present appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Award dated 31.12.2010, passed in MAC Case No. 646/2008 by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC No. 2) cum Member of MACT, Kamrup, Guwahati. 3. The background facts of the case is that the present appellant preferred a claim petition being MAC Case No. 648/2008 claiming compensation on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident. 4. It is the case of the claimant that on 12.12.2007, while claimant was returning from his office ie. Airport Authority India by driving his Maruti Car bearing registration No. AS-01E-4786 in a very normal speed, at about 10:30 PM, at Ballapar, the offending Truck bearing registration No. AS-17-0347, knocked down his Maruti Car from behind and as a result of the accident, he sustained injuries. 5. The case proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party No. 1 and 2 i.e. the driver and owner of the offending vehicle respectively. However, Insurance Company contested the case by filing written statement. 6. Amongst other usual pleas, the Insurance Company took a plea that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle may not be a valid one. 7. The claimant to prove his claim, examined himself as the witness and exhibited documents in proof of his injury and accident etc. the Insurance Company in support of their contention, examined two witnesses. DW-1, is the Insurance Investigator, who had exhibited one report from the DTO, Nagaon, which discloses that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was not renewed on the date of the accident (12.12.2007) and the same expired on 01.01.2007. 8. In the aforesaid backdrop, though the learned tribunal below had held that the claimant is entitled to get compensation to the tune of Rs.3,40,200/-only along with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of the case till payment, however, the learned tribunal below held that as the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was not a valid driving license on the date of accident as it was not renewed and its validity expired, therefore, liability to pay such compensation is upon the owner of the vehicle and not upon the Insurance Company. 9. Mr. K. R. Bora, learned counsel for the appellant only urged that the learned tribunal below has committed serious error of law by directing the payment of the compensation to the owner of the vehicle, however, in the given facts and circumstances, the learned tribunal ought to have issued a direction of payment and recovery. In support of his contention, Mr. Bora, learned counsel relies on a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Chandra Singh –Vs-Rajaram and Ors reported in 2018 8 SCC 799 . 10. Per contra, Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company countering such argument submits that the award was granted in the year 2010 and the appellant preferred the appeal, immediately thereafter in the year 2011. However, the appellant has not filed any application for execution of the award till date inasmuch as there was no bar to do the same during the entire period. Therefore, he submits that in the aforesaid backdrop, this appeal should be dismissed and the appellant should be relegated to the execution proceeding. 11. This Court has given anxious considerations to the arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the materials available on record. 12. The Hon’ble Apex Court in PEPSU Road Transport Corporation –Vs-National Insurance Company reported in (2013) 10 SCC 217 , after considering different decisions on the Hon’ble Apex Court laid the following principles:- I. It is open to the insurer under Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) to take a defence that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident was not duly licensed. II. If such defence is taken, the onus is upon the insurance to prove the same. III. The owner of a vehicle when hires a driver, he has to check the validity of the driving license and to satisfy himself as to the competent of the driver. The owner cannot be expected to go beyond that, to the extent of verifying the genuineness of the driving license with the licensing authority before hiring the services of the driver. In an event, if, despite having information regarding a fake license, yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter, then, insured will be not at fault and in circumstances, insurance company is not liable for compensation. 13. In the case of National Insurance Co. In an event, if, despite having information regarding a fake license, yet the owner does not take appropriate action for verification of the matter, then, insured will be not at fault and in circumstances, insurance company is not liable for compensation. 13. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd –Vs-Swaran Singh and Ors reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 , the Hon’ble Apex Court had that mere absence, fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the 3rd parties. It was also held in Swaran Singh and Ors (supra) that to avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of policy regarding use of vehicle by duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at that relevant point of time. 14. In the case of Ram Chandra Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court, upon consideration of different earlier judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the mere fact that driving license is fake, per-se, would not absolve the insurer and in that case, the principle of pay and recovery shall be applicable. 15. In the case in hand, the Insurance Company took a specific plea in their written statement that the driving license of the driver was not a valid one and they examined DW-1 who is the Insurance Investigator and the said DW-1 exhibited Ext-A, which is a letter addressed by him to the DTO, Nagaon, requesting information about the validity of the license of the driver. He further exhibited Ext.-B, which is a letter of the DTO, Nagaon which reflects that no renewal of the license was done on the date of the accident. However, there was nothing on record to show regarding knowledge of the owner of the same. 16. In the present case in hand, the insurance has not taken any specific stand that the driving license is fake. Secondly, the insurance through DW-1 and DW2 only proved the fact that the driving license was expired on the date of accident. However, there was nothing on record to show regarding knowledge of the owner of the same. 16. In the present case in hand, the insurance has not taken any specific stand that the driving license is fake. Secondly, the insurance through DW-1 and DW2 only proved the fact that the driving license was expired on the date of accident. Therefore, in the aforesaid backdrop and taking note of the settled proposition of law as discussed herein above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned tribunal below ought to have issued a direction of “pay and recovery”. 17. From the records, it is clear that the learned Tribunal below has rightly absolved the Insurance Company from the liability to pay the compensation on the basis of the documents received from the DTO, Nagaon, which shows that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid license on the date of accident. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shamanna –Vs-The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Ors reported in 2018 9 SCC 650 laid down that if a driver of an offending vehicle does not possessed a valid driving license, the principle of “pay and recover” can be ordered. This Court is also of the considered opinion that the 3rd party victim shall not be allowed to suffer any further and therefore, this is a fit case whether the principle of pay and order can be directed. 18. In view of the aforesaid, the present appeal is allowed. It is directed to the Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount along with interest and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Such payment should be made within a period of 30 days from receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the interest shall be counted from the date of filing of the claim to the date of judgment of the learned tribunal below and the period which this appeal is pending before this Court shall not be counted for the purpose of interest for the reason that there is no fault on the part of the Insurance Company in not paying the dues during the pendency of this appeal. However, it is also made clear that if the payment is not made within the period as stipulates, the same shall carry interest @ 6% from expiry of such period till payment. 19. With the aforesaid observation, this appeal is allowed. 20. LCR be sent back forthwith to the learned tribunal below.