ORDER : 1. These are eight appeals by the owner arising out of the eight different claim cases decided by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur arising out of the same accident that took place on 01.01.2010 involving the same vehicle. Since the ground of challenge in all these eight appeals are identical in nature, these eight appeals are being proceeded to be decided by a common order. 2. Facts leading to the filing of the appeals is the accident on 01.01.2010 which took place at Village Siltara District Raipur between two vehicles Tata Magic bearing registration No.CG04 T 4494 and Tata Matador bearing registration No.CG 04 ZB 2163. The Tata Magic was insured with the Shriram General Insurance Company Limited and Tata Matador was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company limited. Four persons had died in the said accident and many persons received injuries from the said accident. 3. There were eight different motor vehicle claim cases that were filed before the Third Additional Motor Accident Tribunal. All these cases were decided by separate orders by the Tribunal. The number of eight motor vehicle claim cases as also the date of decision of the Tribunal and amount of compensation awarded is reproduced in a Tabular Form as under :- Serial No. Case No. Date of Decision Amount of compensation awarded 1 292/2011 23.12.2014 4,82,500 Rs. 2 84/2012 24.12.2014 33,626 Rs. 3 28/2010 24.12.2014 2,72,500 Rs. 4 87/2012 24.12.2014 24,189 Rs. 5 85/2012 23.12.2014 1,50,083 Rs. 6 86/2012 24.12.2014 63,320 Rs. 7 293/2011 23.12.2014 6,95,500 Rs. 8 142/2011 23.12.2014 10,05,420 Rs. 4. As per the records, on 01.01.2010 when in the Tata Magic passengers were coming from Korba where the passengers had gone for a religious function and while returning to Mandir Hasaud, Tata Magic in which they were travelling registered as CG 04 T 4494 was hit by the Tata Matador coming from the opposite direction at Village Siltara. The Matador was registered as bearing registration No.CG 04 ZB 2163. The Tribunal finally vide impugned award under challenge have passed an amount of compensation as reflected in the table cited above in respect of the 8 different claim cases. The Matador was registered as bearing registration No.CG 04 ZB 2163. The Tribunal finally vide impugned award under challenge have passed an amount of compensation as reflected in the table cited above in respect of the 8 different claim cases. While passing the said impugned orders the Tribunal had applied the principle of pay and recovery against the owner fastening the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company i.e. the Oriental Insurance Company which had insured the Matador which had hit the Tata Magic with liberty to recover the awarded amount from the owner. The rule of pay and recover was applied on the ground that the license which was used by the driver of the Tata Matador at the time of accident was not proper a valid license and it was rather a fake document. It is this order of pay and recovery awarded by the Tribunal which has been subjected to challenge in these 8 appeals. 5. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the finding so far as applying the pay and recovery per-se bad in law for the reason that there was no fault or error on the part of the owner appellant in following the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act in the course of operating the Tata Matador CG 04 ZB 2163 and that the driver had a valid license at the time of accident. The Vehicle had all the requisite certificates that are otherwise required under the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore liability could not had been fastened upon the owner for having committed any breach and in the course applying the principle of pay and recovery in favour of the Insurance Company. 6. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle at the relevant point of time was being driven by one Jamir Beg, son of Rahim Beg. Undisputedly, he had a license that was initially issued on 11.02.1985 by the RTO, Raipur. The said license had been since then periodically got renewed and at a later stage the license was renewed by the RTO, Bilaspur vide order dated 29.01.2007 and name of the applicant subsequently stood changed in the renewed license from Jalil Beg to Jamir Beg. 7. The said license had been since then periodically got renewed and at a later stage the license was renewed by the RTO, Bilaspur vide order dated 29.01.2007 and name of the applicant subsequently stood changed in the renewed license from Jalil Beg to Jamir Beg. 7. According to the appellant i.e. the owner of the Matador at the time of engaging the driver i.e. Jalil Beg the owner did not take precaution to ensure that the driver had a valid license and vehicle had all the certificates under the Motor Vehicle Law. He had also taken an insurance policy from the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the policy was a package policy. Therefore Court below applying the principle of pay and recovery does not seem to be proper, legal and justified. It was the contention of the appellant that at no point of time has any of the respondent been able to show that there was a bonafide lapse on the part of the appellant owner. While, engaging the persons operating the said offending vehicle or the fact that the appellant owner was fully aware of the license in the name of Jamir Beg to be fake or fraudulent. Thus, learned counsel for the appellant prayed that the impugned award to the extent of applying the principle of pay and recovery be set aside and insurance company i.e. the Oriental Insurance Company to directed to indemnify the owner completely without any recovery proceedings. 8. Mr. Raj Awasthi on the other hand opposing the appeal submits that from the evidence which has come on record more particularly the evidence brought in by the insurance company it would clearly reflect that sufficient evidence was adduced by the insurance company to show that the license that was issued at the first instance on 11.02.1985 was not a genuine document inasmuch as the driver Jalil Beg was not having the requisite age for having the license at that point of time as he was less than 18 years of age which was the minimum age required for issuance of license. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that another fact needs to be considered is that the license originally was issued in the name of Jalil Beg where the license that driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident had was in the name Jamir Beg. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that another fact needs to be considered is that the license originally was issued in the name of Jalil Beg where the license that driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident had was in the name Jamir Beg. Thus, there is an apparent anomaly in the name of two license, one issued in the name of Jalil Beg and another in the name of Jamir Beg which would amount to breach of insurance condition. Thus, the order passed by the Court below applying the principle of pay and recovery does not warrant interference. 9. Another fact which has been brought to the notice of the Court by counsel for the insurance company is that the date of birth of the driver Jamir Beg was 19.01.1968, thus on the date when the license was issued on 11.02.1985 he was less than 18 years of age and he could not have been issued with a license by the Transport Authority then. According to the counsel for the insurance company the owner has no representation before the Tribunal concerned to prove his contention as regards proper care and precaution taken by him while engaging the services of the driver and also of having taken due care to verify the contents of the license. 10. All said and done, the whole dispute in the said appeals is whether the Tribunal below was justified in applying the rule of pay and recover in the aforegiven facts. Whether the owner can be fastened with the liability of payment of compensation. Admittedly an accident did take place on 1.1.2010, offending vehicle as per the FIR and other criminal documents is the Tata Matador bearing registration No. CG 04 ZB 2163. The said vehicle was duly insured under the package policy with the oriental insurance company limited. The vehicle at the relevant point of time i.e. the date of accident, was driven by one Jamir Beg, son of Rahim Beg. On the date of accident i.e. on 1.1.2010 Jamir Beg did have a license duly issued from the RTO, Bilaspur and which was periodically was renewed for driving of a light motor vehicle and also for driving of light commercial transport vehicle. On the date of accident i.e. on 1.1.2010 Jamir Beg did have a license duly issued from the RTO, Bilaspur and which was periodically was renewed for driving of a light motor vehicle and also for driving of light commercial transport vehicle. From the evidence of the said driver, Jamir Beg before the Court below it stands established that on the date of accident, he had a license that he had shown also to the appellant-owner Radheshyam at the time of his engagement as a driver by the appellant. 11. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nirmala Kothari Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2020) 4 SCC 49 in paragraph 10, 11 & 12 has held as under :- “10. While the insurer can certainly take the defence that the licence of the driver of the car at the time of accident was invalid/fake however the onus of proving that the insured did not take adequate care and caution to verify the genuineness of the licence or was guilty of willful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance lies on the insurer. 11. The view taken by the National Commission that the law as settled in the Pepsu case (Supra) is not applicable in the present matter as it related to third-party claim is erroneous. It has been categorically held in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors. 3 (SCC pp.341, para 110) that, “110. (iii)…Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence 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 third parties. 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 the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licenced driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time.” 12. While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise. While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise. If the employer finds the driver to be competent to drive the vehicle and has satisfied himself that the driver has a driving licence there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) and the Insurance Company would be liable under the policy. It would be unreasonable to place such a high onus on the insured to make enquiries with RTOs all over the country to ascertain the veracity of the driving licence. However, if the Insurance Company is able to prove that the owner/insured was aware or had notice that the licence was fake or invalid and still permitted the person to drive, the insurance company would no longer continue to be liable.” 12. The aforesaid finding of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was in the light of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Lehru, (2003) 3 SCC 338 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court had taken a categorical stand that insurance company cannot be permitted to avoid its liability on the ground that the person driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not having license. 13. The aforesaid view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently again been reiterated in its judgment dated 26.07.2022 in the case of Rishipal Singh Vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 4919/2022, wherein in paragraph 7 to 10 dealing with the earlier decisions in this regard have held as under :- “7. To appreciate the contention of the appellant, the observations of this Court in Lehru (supra) have been reproduced as under: “20. When an owner is hiring a driver he will therefore have to check whether the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If the driver produces a driving licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the owner is not expected to find out whether the licence has in fact been issued by a competent authority or not. The owner would then take the test of the driver. If he finds that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, he will hire the driver. We find it rather strange that insurance companies expect owners to make enquiries with RTOs, which are spread all over the country, whether the driving licence shown to them is valid or not. Thus where the owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence and is driving competently there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii). The insurance company would not then be absolved of liability. If it ultimately turns out that the licence was fake, the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless they prove that the owner/insured was aware or had noticed that the licence was fake and still permitted that person to drive. More importantly, even in such a case the insurance company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured. This is the law which has been laid down in Skandia [ (1987) 2 SCC 654 ] , Sohan Lal Passi [ (1996) 5 SCC 21 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 871] and Kamla [ (2001) 4 SCC 342 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 701] cases. We are in full agreement with the views expressed therein and see no reason to take a different view.” 8. The issue has been examined by a larger Bench in Swaran Singh (supra) wherein it was argued that the observations in Lehru were in conflict with the earlier judgment in New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla and Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 342 . This Court held as under: “92. It may be true as has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that a fake or forged licence is as good as no licence but the question herein, as noticed hereinbefore, is whether the insurer must prove that the owner was guilty of the wilful breach of the conditions of the insurance policy or the contract of insurance. In Lehru case [ (2003) 3 SCC 338 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 614] the matter has been considered in some detail. In Lehru case [ (2003) 3 SCC 338 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 614] the matter has been considered in some detail. We are in general agreement with the approach of the Bench but we intend to point out that the observations made therein must be understood to have been made in the light of the requirements of the law in terms whereof the insurer is to establish wilful breach on the part of the insured and not for the purpose of its disentitlement from raising any defence or for the owners to be absolved from any liability whatsoever. We would be dealing in some detail with this aspect of the matter a little later. xxx xxx xxx 99. So far as the purported conflict in the judgments of Kamla [ (2001) 4 SCC 342 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 701] and Lehru [ (2003) 3 SCC 338 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 614] is concerned, we may wish to point out that the defence to the effect that the licence held by the person driving the vehicle was a fake one, would be available to the insurance companies, but whether despite the same, the plea of default on the part of the owner has been established or not would be a question which will have to be determined in each case. 100. This Court, however, in Lehru [ (2003) 3 SCC 338 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 614] must not be read to mean that an owner of a vehicle can under no circumstances have any duty to make any enquiry in this respect. The same, however, would again be a question which would arise for consideration in each individual case.” 9. Similar question again came up for consideration before a three Judge Bench in a judgment reported as Pappu and Ors. v. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Anr. (2018) 3 SCC 208 wherein it was held that the onus would shift on the Insurance Company after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorized by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving license at the relevant time. The valid driving license is the license which is produced before the owner. This Court held as under: “12. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. [National Insurance Co. The valid driving license is the license which is produced before the owner. This Court held as under: “12. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] has noticed the defences available to the insurance company under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurance company is entitled to take a defence that the offending vehicle was driven by an unauthorised person or the person driving the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence. The onus would shift on the insurance company only after the owner of the offending vehicle pleads and proves the basic facts within his knowledge that the driver of the offending vehicle was authorised by him to drive the vehicle and was having a valid driving licence at the relevant time. xxx xxx xxx 17. This issue has been answered in National Insurance Co. Ltd. [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 733] In that case, it was contended by the insurance company that once the defence taken by the insurer is accepted by the Tribunal, it is bound to discharge the insurer and fix the liability only on the owner and/or the driver of the vehicle. However, this Court held that even if the insurer succeeds in establishing its defence, the Tribunal or the court can direct the insurance company to pay the award amount to the claimant(s) and, in turn, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The three-Judge Bench, after analysing the earlier decisions on the point, held that there was no reason to deviate from the said well settled principle. In para 107, the Court then observed thus: (SCC p. 340) “107. The three-Judge Bench, after analysing the earlier decisions on the point, held that there was no reason to deviate from the said well settled principle. In para 107, the Court then observed thus: (SCC p. 340) “107. We may, however, hasten to add that the Tribunal and the court must, however, exercise their jurisdiction to issue such a direction upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of each case and in the event such a direction has been issued, despite arriving at a finding of fact to the effect that the insurer has been able to establish that the insured has committed a breach of contract of insurance as envisaged under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) of subsection (2) of Section 149 of the Act, the insurance company shall be entitled to realise the awarded amount from the owner or driver of the vehicle, as the case may be, in execution of the same award having regard to the provisions of Sections 165 and 168 of the Act. However, in the event, having regard to the limited scope of inquiry in the proceedings before the Tribunal it had not been able to do so, the insurance company may initiate a separate action therefor against the owner or the driver of the vehicle or both, as the case may be. Those exceptional cases may arise when the evidence becomes available to or comes to the notice of the insurer at a subsequent stage or for one reason or the other, the insurer was not given an opportunity to defend at all. Such a course of action may also be resorted to when a fraud or collusion between the victim and the owner of the vehicle is detected or comes to the knowledge of the insurer at a later stage.” 10. The owner of the vehicle is expected to verify the driving skills and not run to the licensing authority to verify the genuineness of the driving license before appointing a driver. Therefore, once the owner is satisfied that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner thereafter to verify the genuineness of the driving license issued to the driver. 14. Therefore, once the owner is satisfied that the driver is competent to drive the vehicle, it is not expected from the owner thereafter to verify the genuineness of the driving license issued to the driver. 14. In view of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also from the admitted factual position as would be available from the records itself that driver of the offending vehicle on the date of accident did have a license which was duly issued from Regional Transport Office, Bilaspur and which also stood renewed from time to time including the date of accident, this Court is of the opinion that learned Tribunal erred in law in so far as applying the principle of pay and recovery is concerned, the impugned award in all these 8 appeals to the aforesaid extent stands set aside/modified and it is held that the Insurance Company shall be jointly and severely liable for payment of compensation without applying the principle of pay and recover. All the 8 appeals accordingly stands allowed as indicated above.