JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company and Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8, who are the claimants. 2. Mr. Madhav Prasad and Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel have appeared on behalf of respondent No. 9, who is owner of the offending vehicle, however, nobody has responded on behalf of respondent No. 9, in spite of repeated calls. In earlier orders passed in this appeal, further speaks of non-appearance of Mr. Madhav Prasad and Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, learned counsel, which shows that they are casually conducting this case against the respondent No. 9. Accordingly, this appeal has been heard in their absence. 3. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-insurance company, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/award dated 07.10.2015, passed by the learned District Judge-I-cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in M.A.C.C. No. 27 of 2012. 4. The claim application was filed on behalf of the claimants stating therein that on 22.11.2010 deceased Gonda Munda was going on his Splendor Plus motorcycle, bearing registration No.OR-14-V-0292 from Chakradharpur to Ranchi. In the meantime, one Scorpio, having the number JH-06-D-4543, coming from Ranchi to Chakradharpur hit the motorcycle, pursuant to that the motorcycle was damaged and the deceased succumbed to injuries. In that background, the FIR was registered and the case was investigated and chargesheet was submitted against the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned tribunal has decided the claim by the judgment dated 07.10.2015 and has been pleased to direct to pay a sum of Rs. 18,38,600/-to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application i.e. from 10.09.2012. 5. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company submits that by order dated 22.04.2016, the awarded amount was directed to be deposited before the learned tribunal by the insurance company and the insurance company has already deposited the same and 50% of the said amount has already been withdrawn by the claimants, in view of the order dated 22.04.2016 and on that day the Execution Case No. 01 of 2016 was stayed in view of the above direction. He further submits that this appeal is fit to be allowed on the ground that the insurance company has taken the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle is not having the valid driving license, however, the learned tribunal has not dealt with this aspect of the matter properly. He further submits that the owner of the vehicle has appeared before the learned tribunal, however, he has not produced the driving license of the driver, in spite of the plea taken by him that the driver was having the valid driving license. He further submits that if the plea was taken, it was incumbent upon him to produce the valid driving license, in light of Section 134(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act. To buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Pappu & Ors. Versus Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr., reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paras-11, 12 and 13 held as follows:- “11. The question is : whether the fact that the offending vehicle bearing No. DIL 5955 was duly insured by Respondent 2 insurance company would per se make the insurance company liable? 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. 13. In the present case, Respondent 1 owner of the offending vehicle merely raised a vague plea in the written statement that the offending Vehicle No. 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, Respondent 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, Respondent 1 did not enter the witness box or examine any witness in support of this plea. Respondent 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. Respondent 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 Respondent 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 Respondent 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.” 6. Mr. The insurance company would become liable only after such foundational facts are pleaded and proved by the owner of the offending vehicle.” 6. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company submits that the insurance company has taken all efforts of finding the driving license and no co-operation was provided by the DTO, Chaibasa and the help of DLSA of said district was taken and thereafter details of the driving license was obtained, by which, it was found that the driver was not having the valid driving license and for that he has filed a petition under Order-41, Rule-27 of CPC in this appeal, annexing the said document, as the same was supplied later on after delivery of the judgment/award. On these grounds, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company submits that the award may kindly be modified. 7. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 8, who are the claimants submits that so far as awarded amount is concerned, that has already been be deposited by the insurance company, however, only 50% has been withdrawn by the claimants and on the quantum, there is no illegality and in that view of the matter, this appeal may kindly be dismissed. 8. In view of the above facts and submissions of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the judgment of the learned tribunal and finds that the learned tribunal has rightly concluded the compensation amount and there is no illegality in that award, however, once the owner of the offending vehicle has appeared before the learned tribunal and has taken the ground that the driver was having the valid driving license, it was incumbent upon him to produce the valid driving license of the driver before the learned tribunal, which is lacking in the case in hand. 9. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu & Ors. (Supra), the owner is required to produce the license of the driver, which has not been done in the case in hand. It also comes in that case that the driving license was produced by the owner and thereafter only the insurance company was called upon to demolish the case of the owner, which is lacking in the case in hand. 10. It also comes in that case that the driving license was produced by the owner and thereafter only the insurance company was called upon to demolish the case of the owner, which is lacking in the case in hand. 10. Accordingly, the judgment/award dated 07.10.2015 is modified to the extent that the insurance company shall satisfy the award in terms of the judgment. The insurance company is set at liberty after satisfying the amount, recovered the said amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. Rest of the part of the award shall be kept intact. The remaining amount shall be released in favour of the claimants. 11. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company shall be transmitted back to the learned tribunal and the learned tribunal shall take endeavour to satisfy the award within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of in the above terms. 13. Interim order, granted earlier, stands vacated. 14. Since the I.A. No. 1594 of 2016 has been filed belatedly and no due diligence is shown, as such, the same is dismissed. 15. Let the Lower Court Records be sent back to the concerned court forthwith.