JUDGMENT : 1. The present First Appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and award dated 11.11.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), by which, the Tribunal has directed the appellant to pay the Rs.6,67,252/- with cost and interest of 7.5% p.a. from the date of application. 2. Brief Facts of the case are as under:- 2.1 On 21.05.2005 at about 9 p.m., Mr. Kanubhai Parmar, while going on his scooter bearing registration No. GJ-6-KK-2503 met with an accident with Motorcycle bearing registration No. GJ-6-BE-4040, that was being driven on wrong side, without blowing any horn and without giving any signal. It was head on collision, due to that accident, deceased-Kanubhai Parmar fell down and taken to the Unity hospital, Vadodara. On 26.05.2005, after getting medical treatment, he scummed to the injuries in the hospital. Therefore, the FIR was filed against opponent No. 1. As per the claim petition, deceased-Kanubhai-Parmar was 40 years old at the time of the accident, working as Supervisor in Yash Construction Company and earning 4,000/- p.m. As per the claimant, they have spent Rs.1,30,000/- for treatment of deceased, therefore, they have filed claim petition before the Tribunal to get the compensation of Rs. 11,00,000/- under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 2.2 The Tribunal issued notices to the opponents. Opponent No. 1 did not appear. Opponent No.2 – Insurance Company appeared through its advocate and filed written statement at Ex. 12, contending that the averments made in the claim petition are not correct and it has disputed the age, income and occurrence of accident. It was also contended by the opponent No. 2- Insurance Company that the deceased was himself liable for the accident and respondent No. 1 did not possess driving license, therefore, Insurance-Company is not liable to pay any amount of compensation, as prayed by the claimants. 2.3 The Tribunal framed issues at Ex. 50. The witnesses were examined like Kokilaben at Ex. 19, Jikabhai Maganbhai Gohil at Ex. 29, Naginbhai Godalal Shah at Ex. 30. Documentary evidences were also produced like FIR at Ex. 21, Panchnama at Ex. 22 PM Report at Ex. 23, bills of hospital and medical treatment at Ex. 24 to 26 and Salary Certificate at Ex. 31. Opponent No. 2 – Insurance Company has also examined the witness-Harish C. Parajapati at Ex. 29, Naginbhai Godalal Shah at Ex. 30. Documentary evidences were also produced like FIR at Ex. 21, Panchnama at Ex. 22 PM Report at Ex. 23, bills of hospital and medical treatment at Ex. 24 to 26 and Salary Certificate at Ex. 31. Opponent No. 2 – Insurance Company has also examined the witness-Harish C. Parajapati at Ex. 44, who is driver of motorcycle insured by appellant, Officer of the RTO, Mumbai- Ashok B. Chauhan at Ex. 48, Officer of the Insurance Company at Ex. 51, Officer of the RTO, Bharuch at Ex. 63 and had also produced various documentary evidences like investigation Report at Ex. 38, driving license at Ex. 39, Insurance Policy at Ex. 41, driving license of opponent No. 1 at Ex. 46 and copy of Policy at Ex. 55, copy of R.C. Book at Ex. 34 and other documents on record. 2.4 After considering the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence, the Tribunal has decided the claim petition after hearing the submissions of the respective advocates and has awarded Rs.6,67,252/- with 7.5% interest p.a from the date of application to the claimants and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are held liable jointly and severally. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, opponent No. 2 – Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. 3. Learned advocate for the Insurance Company, Mr. Dakshesh Mehta has submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not considering the fact that the driver of the other vehicle is not holding valid and effective driving license. He has submitted that the documentary evidence along with the copy of RTO letter etc., are produced and various officers from the RTO have also been examined by the Insurance Company and according to the fact that the license produced by the respondent No. 1 is fake. When the Opponent No. 1 raised the claim before the Insurance Company about the damage of his scooter at that point of time, the Insurance Company came to know about the license and it is found that the opponent No. 1 was not holding valid and effective license at the time of accident. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the submission of the appellant that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license and depositions of RTO Officer at Ex. 48, is not properly appreciated. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the submission of the appellant that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid and effective driving license and depositions of RTO Officer at Ex. 48, is not properly appreciated. He has further submitted that when two vehicles are involved, and when there is head on collision, both the vehicles are responsible equally and the Tribunal has held only one vehicle responsible. He has relied upon the judgment of Maniben S. Pandya v. Shashikant P. Shrigalor reported in GLR 1878 (2004) 3. He has also disputed the liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in view of the Section 149(2) A. Therefore, he has prayed to allow this appeal. 4. Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent Mr. MTM Hakim has argued with all force by contending that present respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are original claimants, are third party to the vehicle, which is ensured by the Insurance Company. Therefore, they cannot be punished for the fault of the driver or owner of the ensured vehicle. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has rightly considered the aspect of liability, more particularly considering the deposition of witness, who is pillion rider – Jikabhai Maganbhai Gohil. He has further contended that even from the deposition of Harish C. Prajapati (Ex. 44), it can easily be presumed that negligence can only be attributed to Harish C. Prajapati. Moreover, Panchnama also supports the version of the claimants and FIR is also lodged against opponent No. 1 – Harish C. Prajapati. Chargesheet is also filed against opponent No. 1 – Harish C. Prajapati. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has rightly held the driver of vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-6-BE-4040 liable. He has further contended that in regard to aspect of the income, the Tribunal has rightly considered the income Rs.4,000/- p.m. He has further contended that the driving license, which is produced by opponent No. 2 at Ex. 46, is found to be concocted as per the deposition of RTO Officer at Ex. 40 and RTO Officer at Ex. 63, but that aspect cannot come in the way of the present claimants to get the compensation from the Insurance Company. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has conservatively awarded the amount under the various heads, which should be on higher side. 40 and RTO Officer at Ex. 63, but that aspect cannot come in the way of the present claimants to get the compensation from the Insurance Company. He has further submitted that the Tribunal has conservatively awarded the amount under the various heads, which should be on higher side. Since he has not filed any cross-objection, he cannot agitate much on that aspect. Therefore he prays to dismiss the appeal qua present claimants (respondent Nos. 1 to 5) and amount, which is lying before the Tribunal be paid to the claimants, forthwith, as claimants are facing financial difficulties. 5. I have heard learned advocates for the respective parties. I have also perused the record and proceedings. I have also perused the entire evidence available on the record. The Tribunal has rightly considered the aspect of income and negligence in view of the deposition of Jikabhai Maganbhai Gohil at Ex. 29, who is only independent eye-witness as a pillion rider. He has correctly deposed that how the accident has occurred and explained total negligence of the vehicle driven by opponent No. 1 i.e. GJ-6-BE-4040. Therefore, there is no doubt that opponent No. 1 is 100% negligent. 5.1. I have also considered the aspect of quantum, which is awarded by the Tribunal though it is correct that the Tribunal has only considered the Rs.4,000/- p.m., which is actual income at the time of accident, as per the salary certificate available on the record. The Tribunal has not awarded any future prospects. Since the present appeal is preferred only by the Insurance Company and no cross-objection is filed by the claimants, it is not appropriated at this stage to grant any further amount. The Tribunal has also considered the amount of medical expenses, pain, shock and suffering, loss of estate, consortium and transportation, funeral expenses, which are also on the lower side. Since the appeal is filed by the Insurance Company, I am of the opinion that amount which is awarded to the tune of Rs.6,67,252/-, in absence of cross-objection, is just and proper. The only contention of the Insurance Company regarding the non holding of driving license of the offending vehicle, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Singh Ram vs Nirmala And Ors. The only contention of the Insurance Company regarding the non holding of driving license of the offending vehicle, in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Singh Ram vs Nirmala And Ors. reported in 2018 vol 3 SCC 800, the issue about the holding of fake/invalid/expired license cannot come in the way to get the compensation by the present claimants. Therefore, the appeal, qua claimants, filed by the present appellant, who are respondent Nos. 1 to 5, are required to be dismissed. However, as the Insurance Company has been able to prove to the extent that driving license of respondent No. 7 herein is fake, original opponent No. 1 – Harish.C. Prajapati, the Insurance Company can resort to appropriate proceedings to recover the amount by following the principles of ‘pay and recover’ as directed in the case of Singh Ram (supra). But it is clarified that the original claimants-respondent Nos. 1 to 5, who are the third party to the vehicle of opponent No. 1, are entitled to get the amount deposited by the appellant before the Tribunal. 5.2 If the appeal is partly allowed qua respondents Nos. 1 to 6, is dismissed qua respondent No. 7 and the amount deposited by the appellant before the Tribunal should be paid to respondent Nos 1 to 5 and it would be open for the appellant to recover it from respondent No. 7 herein in proper legal procedure, which will meet the ends of justice. 6. In view of the above, the following order is passed. 6.1 Present First Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent, with no order as to costs. 6.2 The Tribunal is directed to disburse the entire amount lying with it and/or lying in the FDR, as per direction of this Court if any, along with accrued interest thereon, to the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, by account payee cheque, after the verification and after following the procedure. 6.3 It would be open for the appellant to recover the said amount from respondent No. 7, in accordance with law. 6.4 Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Tribunal, forthwith.