JUDGMENT : Sandeep Sharma, J. CMP No. 2718 of 2020 By way of instant application, filed under S. 151 CPC prayer has been made by the appellant for placing on record documents on record, which may be relevant for adjudication of the appeal i.e. letter dated 12.12.2019 issued by Registering and Licensing Authority Ghumarwin, Bilaspur, thereby certifying that driving licence No. C707011999111866 issued in the name of Rafiq Mohammed son of Hukam Deen has been found to be genuine as per office record and same was valid till 24.5.2007 for Heavy Transport Vehicle (HTV) vehicles as per office record. Though no reply has been filed but on 4.3.2020, this court, having perused documents intended to be placed on record, ordered for admission and denial of documents accompanying CMP No.333 of 2013, as well as application at hand. 3. Perusal of record reveals that learned counsel for the parties presented themselves before learned Additional Registrar (Judicial) for admission/denial of documents and documents in question stand duly admitted by the official of the insurance company. In view of above, documents annexed with the present application are taken on record. application is disposed of. CMP No. 333 of 2013 4. By way of instant application filed under Order XLI, rule 27 CPC, permission has sought to lead additional evidence, to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle was having valid and effective driving licence to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle (HTV). Since documents intended to be placed on record have been already ordered to be taken on record by this court, while disposing of CMP No. 2718 of 2020, present application has been rendered infructuous and is accordingly disposed of. FAO No. 196 of 2013 5. By way of instant appeal filed under S. 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter, ‘Act’), challenge has been laid to Award dated 27.12.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh in MAC No. 8 of 2009, titled Baldev v. Neem Akhter and others, whereby learned Tribunal below, while allowing the claim petition, having been filed by respondent No.1 under S. 166 of the Act, though saddled the appellant with the liability to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,31,400/-, but ordered respondent No.2-insurance company to pay the amount of compensation and recover the same from the appellant herein. 6. 6. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that the respondent No.1 Baldev Singh instituted a petition under S. 166 of the Act, praying therein for grant of compensation on account of injury suffered by him in an accident on 31.3.2007. Record reveals that the claimant was traveling in bus bearing registration No. HP-23A-1786 from Bagher to Sundernagar and when the bus reached near NTPC office, nearly 1 ½ km from Barmana, driver of the bus overtook another bus in a rash and negligent manner from wrong side and hit a jeep coming from opposite side, as a consequence of which, wrist and fingers of claimant were crushed and he sustained multiple injuries. Since the claimant was rendered 40% permanently disabled due to injuries as detailed herein above, he claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.10.00 Lakh, but learned Tribunal below, on the basis of evidence led on record by parties, held owner of the vehicle i.e. appellant herein liable to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,31,400/- to respondent No.1, but ordered that, at first instance, amount shall be paid by the insurance company. Though insurance company has not laid challenge to said award as such, same has attained finality qua it, but appellant, who is owner of the vehicle, has approached this court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to set aside award, inasmuch he has been saddled with liability to pay compensation to respondent No.1. 7. Precisely, case of the appellant, as highlighted in appeal and further canvassed by Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, learned counsel for the appellant, is that since the appellant proved on record by leading cogent and convincing evidence that at the time of accident, driver was having valid and effective driving licence to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle, there was no occasion for the learned Tribunal below to order the insurance company to pay the amount and thereafter recover the same from the appellant, rather, respondent insurance company should have been saddled with liability to pay the compensation. 8. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis-a-vis reasoning assigned by learned Tribunal below, while passing impugned Award, this court finds that liability came to be saddled upon the appellant, on the ground that at the time of accident, though driver was having driving licence but did not authorize him to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle. While deciding issue No.7, learned Tribunal below though arrived at a finding that at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was having driving licence but same was valid for non-transport vehicle, that too upto 23.1.2013. If impugned Award is perused in its entirety, it reveals that though learned Tribunal below, after having carefully perused the driving licence, found that there was an endorsement on the driving licence that it is valid for Heavy Transport Vehicle but since the validity period was not mentioned therein, it proceeded to conclude that driver was not authorized to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle. Since in this case offending vehicle was a Heavy Transport Vehicle, liability to pay compensation came to be fastened upon the appellant. 9. Though having carefully perused the driving licence i.e. Mark R1, this court finds that there is endorsement thereupon with regard to competence of driver to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle, but definitely there was no mention, if any, with regard to its validity, but once there was specific mention with regard to competence of driver to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle, learned Tribunal below ought not have fastened liability to pay compensation upon the appellant, because, admittedly, at the time of accident, driver was having valid and effective driving licence to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle. 10. Leaving everything aside, during the proceedings of the appeal, this court permitted appellant to place on record certain documents i.e. driving licence as well communication dated 12.12.2019 issued by Registering and Licensing Authority, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, perusal whereof reveals that the driving licence No. C07011999111866 was issued in the name of Rafiq Mohammad i.e. Driver of offending vehicle and it was renewed on 24.5.2001 vide renewal No. 247109, extending validity from 24.5.2001 to 23.5.2004, then on 19.5.2004 vide renewal No. 2791122, extending validity from 24.5.2004 to 25.4.2007 for Heavy Transport Vehicle class of vehicles. 11. 11. If it is so, it cannot be said that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive Heavy Transport Vehicle at the time of accident which occurred on 31.3.2007. Needless to say, this court after having perused the aforesaid documents, fixed matter for admission/denial of documents, wherein officials of the respondent insurance company, admitted documents to be correct on the basis of report of the Surveyor. 12. Consequently, in view of above, present appeal is allowed and impugned Award dated 27.12.2012 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh in MAC No. 8 of 2009, titled Baldev v. Neem Akhter and others is quashed and set aside inasmuch as appellant has been saddled with liability to pay compensation to respondent No.1 and respondent No.2-insurance company has been directed to indemnify the claimant at the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the appellant and respondent No.2 Insurance Company is held liable to pay the entire amount of compensation. 13. Appeal stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications. Interim directions, if any, stand vacated. 14. Respondent No.2-Insurance Company has already deposited Rs. 2,91,400/’- before learned Tribunal below, out of which Rs. 75,000/- is stated to have been already released in favour of the respondent No.1. Besides this, 50% of amount deposited by the appellant in this Court, has also been released in favour of respondent No.1. 15. In view of above, Registry is directed to call for the amount lying in deposit with the learned Tribunal below, without four weeks. Thereafter, the appellant may file an appropriate application, for refund of the amounts, deposited by him with the Registry of this Court.