JUDGMENT : Heard the parties. 2. Perusal of the record reveals that though, the notice has validly been served upon the Respondent nos.1 to 6 but no one turns up on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 6. Though the respondent no.8 has appeared in this appeal through his advocate but no one turns up on behalf of the respondent no.8 at the time of hearing the appeal, in spite of repeated calls. Therefore, this appeal is being heard ex-parte in respect of respondent nos.1 to 6 and 8. 3. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 23.06.2010 passed by the learned 1st Addl. MACT, Giridih passed in Claim Case No.38 of 2004 whereby and whereunder, learned 1st Addl. MACT, Giridih has passed the award directing the opposite party no.3 before the MACT being National Insurance Company Limited which is respondent no.7 herein this appeal to pay the sum of Rs.3,10,600/- by way of compensation to the dependents of the deceased victim in the motor vehicle accident but held that since, there was no valid and effective driving licence of the Bijay Kant Thakur, the driver of the vehicle which was involved in the said motor vehicle accident and the appellant herein, who is opposite party no.1 of the Claim Case No.38 of 2004 before MACT, Giridih being the owner of the vehicle involved in the said motor vehicle accident, did not file driving license of the driver renewed at the time of accident, hence the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the aforesaid amount from the owner of the vehicle by initiating proceeding before the executing court without filing a separate suit in this regard. 4. Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has grievance only regarding the second part of the award whereby and whereunder, learned MACT, Giridih has held that Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the said compensation amount from the appellant herein who is the owner of the vehicle and the appellant thus in this appeal assails the said 2nd part of the award. It is next submitted that the learned MACT, Giridih in the impugned award itself has categorically observed in para 9 at page no.8 of the impugned award that Driving License of the Bijay Kant Thakur, the driver of the alleged vehicle was valid up to 11.08.2006 and therefore on the alleged date of occurrence, the owner and the driver had valid papers regarding the offending vehicle, and the driver of the vehicle has also valid Driving License on the alleged date of occurrence but in the last sub-paragraph of para 9 at page 9 of the impugned award; learned MACT, Giridih took a U-turn without any basis by observing that on perusal of the Exhibit-F, it transpires that the Driving Licence was not valid on the date of occurrence. It is further submitted by Mr. Kumar that the learned MACT erred by losing sight of the fact that since in his deposition, the appellant was examined as a witness in the claim Case, has categorically explained that the driver has gone outside along with his driving license hence his driving license was not available with the appellant and under such circumstances the appellant produced the certified copy of the driving license of the driver concerned obtained from the office of District Transport Officer. It is then submitted that undisputedly as it was a certified copy of the driving license so obviously when the signature of the DTO by whose office certified copy was issued was illegible; it has been mentioned as “Sd” and thereafter a straight line was drawn underneath and below the straight line, “DTO, K.S. Srivastava” has categorically been mentioned. Thus the learned MACT in the absence of any challenge made by any of the parties in a civil proceeding, ought not have raised suspicion regarding the veracity of the contents of the certified copy of the public document more so when it has accepted in the first subparagraph of paragraph 9 of the said award itself that the driving license was valid up to 17.11.2006. Hence, it is submitted that the said second portion of the award being illegal and perverse be set aside. 5. Mr. Hence, it is submitted that the said second portion of the award being illegal and perverse be set aside. 5. Mr. G.C. Jha, learned counsel for the respondent no.7 on the other hand submits that as in the certified copy of the driving license issued by the District Transport Officer concerned the original signature of the District Transport Officer is not appearing at the designated place on the Driving License where the endorsement regarding the period of extension of the validity of the driving license concerned has been made and in the same certified copy of the driving license concerned, under the endorsement to the effect that the Driving License is valid up to 17.11.2006 only the word “Sd” has been mentioned and underneath that the name of the District Transport Officer K. S. Srivastava has been mentioned without any date of putting such signature being specifically mentioned; so it is submitted that learned MACT, Giridih has rightly held that the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the compensation amount paid to the dependents of the victims of accident from the appellant of this case being the owner of the vehicle, having failed to satisfy the learned MACT that the driver concerned on the date of motor vehicle accident was having a valid licence. Hence, it is submitted by Mr Jha that this appeal being without any merit be dismissed. 6. Having heard the submissions made at the bar and after going through the materials in the record; the only point of determination in this appeal is ; “Whether the learned MACT was proper in holding that Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the compensation amount paid to the dependents of the victims from the owner of the vehicle by initiating the proceeding before the Executing Court?” Perusal of the record reveals that the Ext. F is the certified copy of the Driving License of the driver concerned and there is no dispute that the Ext. F is a certified copy of a public document and the same was marked as Ext. F vide order dated 11.11.2009 passed by MACT, Giridih in Claim Case No.38 of 2004, second para of which reads as under: “The certified copy of driving License Register of Bijay Kant filed by the O.P. No objection filed by anyone. F is a certified copy of a public document and the same was marked as Ext. F vide order dated 11.11.2009 passed by MACT, Giridih in Claim Case No.38 of 2004, second para of which reads as under: “The certified copy of driving License Register of Bijay Kant filed by the O.P. No objection filed by anyone. Hence, this document accepted as Exbt.-F. On verbal request of the learned counsel for the O.P., the O.P. evidence closed. Fix 10.12.2009 for argument.” 7. So from the perusal of the said order, it is crystal clear that the said certified copy of the Driving License was marked as Ext. F without any objection by Insurance Company. As submitted by learned counsel for the appellant, since it was a certified copy so obviously when the signature of the DTO by whose office certified copy was issued was illegible; it has been mentioned as “Sd” and thereafter a straight line was drawn underneath and below the straight line, “DTO, K.S. Srivastava” has been categorically mentioned. Since, the respondent no.7 being Insurance Company has not challenged the authenticity of the certified copy of the driving license of the driver concerned who is respondent no.8 in this appeal, the Learned MACT, Giridih certainly erred by doubting the entry made in the said Ext.-F regarding its validity whereas it is in no uncertain terms has been mentioned in the said certified copy of the driving license to the effect that it is valid up to 17.11.2006 and ought to have stick to his observations made in the first subparagraph of paragraph 9 of the award that the driver of the said vehicle involving the motor vehicle accident was having a valid driving license up to 17.11.2006. So under the facts and circumstances of this case and the evidence in the record this court has no hesitation in holding that the materials in the record is sufficient to hold that, the respondent no.8 herein was having a valid Driving License on the date of accident on 08.01.2004, as rightly observed by the learned MACT, Giridih in the first sub-para of para 9, whereas “issue no. V” is discussed at page no.8 of the impugned award and in view of the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the considered view that the learned MACT, Giridih erred by observing in the last sub-para of para 9 at page 9 of the impugned award that the driving license was not valid on the date of occurrence. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that finding of the learned MACT to the effect that the driving license of the driver of the vehicle on the date of occurrence of the motor vehicle accident concerned, was not valid on the date of occurrence, was based on uncalled and irrelevant considerations and the same is not sustainable in law, accordingly the same is set aside and the consequential entitlement given by the learned MACT, Giridih to the Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount paid by it to the dependents of the victims from the driver of said vehicle, having been based on such erroneous findings, is also set aside. 8. It is made clear that the Insurance Company shall not be entitled to recover the amount paid by way of compensation to the dependents of the deceased victim. 9. The award dated 23.06.2010 passed by the learned 1st Addl. MACT, Giridih passed in Claim Case No.38 of 2004 is modified to the aforesaid extent only. 10. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. 11. No order as to costs. 12. Let a copy of this order along with LCR be sent back to the court below forthwith.