JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R. Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. A.G. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 (claimant). None has appeared for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23-09-2016 passed by the learned Member, MACT No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati in connection with MAC Case No. 1535/2012 awarding a sum of Rs. 1,91,000/- as compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant in a motor accident which occured on 15-04-2012. 3. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the Insurance Company/ appellant submits that this appeal is not on quantum of compensation but the basic ground urged in this appeal is pertaining to the fact that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid license on the date of accident and to that extent, the Insurance Company does not have any liability in the matter. 4. The basic facts of the case are more or less undisputed. On 15-04-2012, the claimant/ respondent No. 1 had met with an accident while he was proceeding in a motorcycle bearing number AS-01/AT-2943 on being hit by a TATA Spacio bearing number AS-01/R-9342 which was being driven in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner by the respondent No. 3. As a result of the said accident, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries. He was rushed to the nearby hospital where he had received medical treatment. Subsequently, the claimant was also admitted in the GNRC Hospital at Guwahati wherein, he had to undergo prolonged medical treatment. Since the TATA (Spacio) vehicle was insured with the appellant, hence, the claimant had raised a claim against the Insurance Company. 5. The OP No. 1, i.e. the owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company had appeared before the learned Tribunal and submitted written statement. However, the OP No. 2, i.e. the driver of the offending vehicle did not enter appearance in the claim case, as a result of which, the claim petition proceeded ex-parte against him. 6. Based on the evidence available on record, the following two issues were framed for a decision in the MAC Case No. 1535/2012 : 1. Whether the claimant, Dipjyoti Borah @ Deepjyoti Bora, sustained injuries in the alleged road accident dated 15.04.12 involving vehicle no. 6. Based on the evidence available on record, the following two issues were framed for a decision in the MAC Case No. 1535/2012 : 1. Whether the claimant, Dipjyoti Borah @ Deepjyoti Bora, sustained injuries in the alleged road accident dated 15.04.12 involving vehicle no. AS-01/R-9432 (Tata Spacio) and whether the said accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite parties, the said compensation amount will be payable? 7. During trial the claimant had examined himself as PW-1 and another eye witness as PW-2 and also produced documentary evidence in support of the expenditure incurred by him in connection with medical treatment. Since there is no dispute as regards the amount claimed by the claimant, hence, it would not be necessary for this Court to embark upon a detail discussion as regards the sufficiency of the evidence adduced by the claimant in support of his case. 8. The Insurance Company had called one witness, viz. Ms. Lohita Kutum, Administrative Officer, who was examined as DW-1. The DW-1 had produced the RTI reply issued by the licensing authority to show that the driving license bearing number DL No. 2824/NB/2006/Prof (Misc) issued by the District Transport Officer (DTO), Nalbari in the name of the OP No. 2 (driver) on 31-12-1999 was valid till 30-12-2002, which was subsequently renewed on 03-05-2006 making the same valid up to 02-05-2009. However, there was no record to show that the driving license was renewed beyond 02-05-2009. Based on the aforesaid RTI reply obtained by the Insurance Company from the concerned DTO, the appellant had urged before the learned Tribunal that the driving license of the driver had expired as on the date of accident. 9. Taking note of the materials available on record including the accident information report, the vouchers and bills of medical treatment produced by the claimant, the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,11,000/- towards medical expenditure incurred by the claimant; an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded on account of pain, shock and suffering; an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded for loss of amenities of life and a further amount of Rs. 20,000/- as incidental expenses incurred during treatment thereby awarding a total amount of Rs. 1,11,000/- towards medical expenditure incurred by the claimant; an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was awarded on account of pain, shock and suffering; an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was awarded for loss of amenities of life and a further amount of Rs. 20,000/- as incidental expenses incurred during treatment thereby awarding a total amount of Rs. 1,91,000/- to the claimant. 10. The learned Tribunal had also rejected the plea of the Insurance Company that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid license and therefore, the Insurance Company had no liability in the matter. The operative part of the findings and conclusions recorded by the learned Tribunal on the plea of expired driving license of the driver raised by the Insurance Company is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference : “To avoid its liability towards 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 to vehicle by duly licenced driver. Willful violation of the policy conditions is required to be proved by the insurer. In the instant case the photocopy of the driving license itself shows that the driver was allowed to drive the vehicle and on the basis of that the owner allowed him to drive the same. The insurer could not prove that the owner had knowledge that the driver was using a fake licence and as such willful violation has not been proved as required under the law. In such a case the owner cannot saddled with the liability to reimburse the amount to the insurer. The insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant.” 11. By referring to the above observation of the learned Tribunal, Mr. Goswami has argued that it was not the case of the appellant before the learned Tribunal that the driver was using a fake license but according to the Insurance Company, the license had expired before the date of the accident and subsequently the license was not renewed. According to Mr. Goswami, the appellant has adduced evidence to show that the driving license had expired but the owner of the vehicle did not adduce any evidence of rebuttal. 12. By referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pappu & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. According to Mr. Goswami, the appellant has adduced evidence to show that the driving license had expired but the owner of the vehicle did not adduce any evidence of rebuttal. 12. By referring to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Pappu & Ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208 , Mr. Goswami has submitted that the burden is also upon the owner of the vehicle to prove that the driver of the vehicle had a valid license on the date of accident but the owner of the vehicle has failed to discharge the said burden. Notwithstanding the same, the learned Tribunal has rejected the plea of the Insurance Company without giving any valid reason. As such, the findings of the learned Tribunal on the above point is perverse in the eye of law. By relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala & Ors. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 701 as well as the decision rendered in the case of Ishwar Chandra & Ors. Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2007) 10 SCC 650 , Mr. Goswami, however, submits that the Insurance Company would be willing to make payment of the awarded amount to the claimant, if liberty is given to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 13. Ms. Choudhury, learned counsel for the claimant, on the other hand, submits that she would have no objection, if such an order is passed by this Court since the appellant is willing to pay the amount awarded to the claimant by the learned Tribunal. 14. In the case of Pappu & Ors. (Supra), the observations made by the Supreme Court pertaining to the liability on the vehicle owner is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference : “13. In the present case, the respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle merely raised a vague plea in the Written Statement that the offending vehicle DIL-5955 was being driven by a person having valid driving licence. He did not disclose the name of the driver and his other details. Besides, the respondent No.1 did not enter the witness box or examine any witness in support of this plea. He did not disclose the name of the driver and his other details. Besides, the respondent No.1 did not enter the witness box or examine any witness in support of this plea. The respondent No.2 Insurance Company in the Written Statement has plainly refuted that plea and also asserted that the offending vehicle was not driven by an authorised person and having valid driving licence. The respondent No.1 owner of the offending vehicle did not produce any evidence except a driving licence of one Joginder Singh, without any specific stand taken in the pleadings or in the evidence that the same Joginder Singh was, in fact, authorised to drive the vehicle in question at the relevant time. Only then would onus shift, requiring the respondent No.2 Insurance Company to rebut such evidence and to produce other evidence to substantiate its defence. Merely producing a valid insurance certificate in respect of the offending Truck was not enough for the respondent No.1 to make the Insurance Company liable to discharge his liability arising from rash and negligent driving by the driver of his vehicle. The Insurance Company can be fastened with the liability on the basis of a valid insurance policy only after the basic facts are pleaded and established by the owner of the offending vehicle - that the vehicle was not only duly insured but also that it was driven by an authorised person having a valid driving licence. Without disclosing the name of the driver in the Written Statement or producing any evidence to substantiate the fact that the copy of the driving licence produced in support was of a person who, in fact, was authorised to drive the offending vehicle at the relevant time, the owner of the vehicle cannot be said to have extricated himself from his liability. The Insurance Company would become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle.” 15. In the present case although the owner of the vehicle had appeared and contested the claim petition by filing written statement, yet, subsequently, he had neither appeared nor adduced any evidence to establish that the driver was holding a valid license. Such an omission on the part of the vehicle owner, in my opinion, would assume great significance in view of the evidence adduced by the DW-1. Such an omission on the part of the vehicle owner, in my opinion, would assume great significance in view of the evidence adduced by the DW-1. It is also to be noted herein that the Insurance Company had taken a specific plea before the learned Tribunal that the driving license of the driver had expired on the date of accident. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the owner of the vehicle to adduce evidence in rebuttal which he has failed to do. As such, by applying the law laid down in the case of Pappu & Ors. (Supra) and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the observations made by the learned Tribunal rejecting the plea of the Insurance Company questioning the validity of the license held by the driver was erroneous in the eye of law. The aforesaid finding is, accordingly, set aside. However, the award of compensation made in favour of the claimant shall remain unaltered. For the reasons stated above, this appeal stands allowed in part. The appellant to pay the awarded amount to the claimant with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The appellant is also permitted to take back the statutory deposit. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.