JUDGMENT : By the Court : 1. Heard the parties. 2. Since both the appeals have arisen out of the same accident, hence, both these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. No one turns up on behalf of the respondents though notices have been validly served upon the respondents. Hence, both these appeals are heard ex-parte against the respective respondents. 4. M.A. No. 304 of 2019 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 10.04.2019 passed by the Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Koderma in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02 of 2017 in respect of death of Mithlesh Kumar and M.A. No. 299 of 2019 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 15.04.2019 passed by the Principal District Judge-cum-Presiding Officer-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Koderma in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 03 of 2017 in respect of death of Sumitra Devi who is the wife of deceased- Mithlesh Kumar. 5. In Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02 of 2017, the learned Tribunal has awarded as sum of Rs.9,98,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the case i.e. on 10.01.2017 and directed the appellant-opposite party no.3- insurance company to pay the said amount within one month and in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 03 of 2017, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,66,000/- with interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the case i.e. on 10.01.2017 and directed the appellant-opposite party no.3- insurance company to pay the said amount within one month. 6. The common facts of both the cases is that on 18.08.2016 when Mithlesh Kumar along with his wife Sumitra Devi and children were going by a motorcycle and parked the motorcycle by the side of the road and crossing the road, the truck bearing registration no. JH-12C-3148 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed them due to which Mithlesh Kumar and Sumitra Devi sustained severe injuries and died at the spot. 7. It is stated that the deceased- Mithlesh Kumar was aged about 27 years at the time of his death and was working as a mason and was earning Rs.300/- per day and taking into consideration the working days in a month to be 26, Rs.7,800/- per month. 7. It is stated that the deceased- Mithlesh Kumar was aged about 27 years at the time of his death and was working as a mason and was earning Rs.300/- per day and taking into consideration the working days in a month to be 26, Rs.7,800/- per month. The deceased- Sumitra Devi is stated to be aged about 25 years and she was doing the agricultural work and earning Rs.3,000/- per month. 8. In connection with the said accident, Chandwara P.S. Case No. 66 of 2016 dated 18.08.2016 corresponding to G.R. No. 862 of 2016, involving the offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of Indian Penal Code was registered against the driver of the offending truck, the certified copy of the FIR has been marked Ext. 1. After completion of investigation; police submitted charge sheet, against the driver of the offending vehicle namely Foudi Kumar Yadav being the opposite party no.2. 9. Upon service of notice the opposite party no.1-owner of the vehicle though appeared in the learned Tribunal but did not file written statement and he was debarred from filing written statement in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02 of 2017 on 08.01.2019 and in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 03 of 2017, the opposite party no.1-owner of the vehicle did not appear in-spite of receiving summon hence, Motor Accident Claim Case No. 03 of 2017 proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 02.08.2018. 10. The appellant-opposite party no.3-insurance company filed written statement challenging the maintainability of the claim application on various technical grounds. The appellant-opposite party no.3-insurance company then pleaded that as the claimant has not filed vehicular papers like R.C. Book, Road Permit, Tax token, driving licence and other vehicular documents in support of their petition so, the appellant-opposite party no.3-insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 11. The opposite party no.2-Foudi Yadav- the alleged driver of the offending truck bearing registration no. 11. The opposite party no.2-Foudi Yadav- the alleged driver of the offending truck bearing registration no. JH-12C-3148 appeared in both cases but in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 03 of 2017, Foudi Yadav did not file the written statement and was debarred from filing written statement on 02.08.2018 whereas in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02 of 2017, Foudi Yadav filed his written statement and challenged the maintainability of the claim petition and further he specifically pleaded that he was the khalashi of the offending vehicle at the time of accident and Baldeo Yadav was the driver of the offending vehicle. He further pleaded in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02 of 2017 that the accident took place due to negligence on the part of the deceased as the deceased- Mithlesh Kumar was driving the motorcycle without driving licence and further pleaded that the said vehicle was insured with opposite party no.3. Hence, the appellant-opposite party no.3- insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. 12. On the basis of the rival pleading of the parties, the learned Tribunal settled the following six issues:- (i) Whether the present claim case is maintainable in its present form? (ii) Whether claimants have got valid cause of action for the present case? (iii) Whether the deceased Mithlesh Kumar/Sumitra Devi (deceased in respective claim cases) died due to motor vehicle accident? (iv) Whether the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (Truck) bearing registration no. JH-12C-3148 by its driver Foudi Yadav (O.P. No.2)? (v) Whether the owner of offending vehicle has violated any terms and conditions of insurance policy and Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured? (vi) Whether the claimants are entitled to get compensation amount as claimed, if so, up to what extent and from whom? 13. In support of their case, the claimants examined three witnesses and proved documents which have been marked Ext. 1 to 3 and X series for identification in both the cases. 14. In order to substantiate their claims, the claimants examined three witnesses separately in both cases. A.W.1-Surji Devi is the mother of deceased- Mithlesh Kumar and mother-in-law of deceased- Sumitra Devi and claimant no.2 in both the cases. 1 to 3 and X series for identification in both the cases. 14. In order to substantiate their claims, the claimants examined three witnesses separately in both cases. A.W.1-Surji Devi is the mother of deceased- Mithlesh Kumar and mother-in-law of deceased- Sumitra Devi and claimant no.2 in both the cases. A.W.2- Manoj Kumar Ram is the brother of the deceased- Mithlesh Kumar and brother-in-law of the deceased- Sumitra Devi and A.W.3- Jageshwar Ram is the father of Mithlesh Kumar and father-in-law of Sumitra Devi and the claimant no.1 of both the cases. None of the three witnesses examined by the claimants are eyewitness to the occurrence. They have supported the case of the claimants about the accident and rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck and income of the deceased persons. The learned Tribunal also considered the FIR marked Ext. 1 and charge sheet marked Ext. 2 of the connected criminal cases as well as the postmortem report of the deceased and upon considering the same, decided the issue nos. (iii) and (iv) which were taken up together for consideration by the learned Tribunal in favour of the claimants. The learned Tribunal next took up issue no. (v) and relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pappu & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. reported in (2018) 3 SCC 208 and considering the pleading that the opposite party no.2 was the driver of the offending vehicle and on the basis of the name disclosed in the FIR and charge sheet submitted against him in the connected criminal case and as it is not pleaded by the appellant-opposite party no.3- insurance company that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid licence at the time of accident and filed a petition that as the opposite party no.2 did not file or produce his driving licence, it may be presumed that the opposite party no.1 was not having a driving licence and thus, the owner has violated the terms and condition of the insurance company hence, the insurance company be absolved of the liability to pay the compensation but the said argument advanced by the insurance company did not find favour in view of the settled principle of law in the case of Pappu & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. (supra) as no evidence was adduced by the appellant-opposite party no.3-insurance company to substantiate its contention of any violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and decided the issue no. (v) in favour of the claimants and against the opposite party no.3 in both the cases being Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02 of 2017 and Motor Accident Claim Case No. 03 of 2017. The learned Tribunal next took up issue nos. (i) and (ii) together and considering the materials in the record came to the conclusion that there is sufficient cause of action for the suit and the suit is maintainable. The learned Tribunal next took up issue no. (vi) and in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02 of 2017, it determined the age of the deceased to be 27 years on the basis of the postmortem report and assessed the income of the deceased to be Rs.6,000/- per month i.e. Rs.72,000/- per annum and applied the multiplier 17 and deducted 1/4th of the established income towards personal income of the deceased and added Rs.80,000/- under the conventional head and awarded a compensation amount of Rs.9,98,000/-. In Motor Accident Claim Case No. 03 of 2017, the learned Tribunal assessed the age of the deceased to be 25 years on the date of accident and assessed her monthly income to be Rs.3,000/- per month. Applied the multiplier 18 and deducted 1/4th towards her personal expenses and added Rs.80,000/- under the conventional head and arrived at the compensation of Rs.5,66,000/- as already indicated above. 15. Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel for the appellant in M.A. No. 304 of 2019 and M.A. No. 299 of 2019 submits that the learned Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation amount of Rs.9,98,000/- in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02 of 2017 and Rs. 5,66,000/- Motor Accident Claim Case No. 03 of 2017 and arrived at the said figures with material illegality and improper appreciation of the evidence. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant in M.A. No. 304 of 2019 and M.A. No. 299 of 2019 that the learned Tribunal erred in appreciating the ratio of law laid down in the case of Pappu & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. (supra). Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pappu & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. (supra). Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pappu & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. (supra), paragraph no. 13 of which reads as under:- “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. 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.” It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in that case, in the written statement the insurance company asserted that the offending vehicle was not driven by any authorized person and having valid driving licence and upon such defence being taken by the insurance company, the owner of the vehicle in that case only produced the driving licence of one Joginder Singh but there was no evidence in the record that Joginder Singh was the person who was driving the vehicle and Hon’ble Supreme Court of India went on to pass an order of pay and recovery. It is then submitted that as in this case also, the opposite party no.1-owner of the vehicle has not been examined hence, following the ratio of Pappu & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. (supra), the insurance company be absolved of the liability to pay the compensation amount. 16. Hence, it is submitted that the judgment and award passed in both the cases be modified by absolving the insurance company to pay the compensation amount. 17. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, the sole points for consideration that cropped up in this appeal is :- (i) “As to whether the learned Tribunal erred by not absolving the appellant-opposite party no.3-insurance company of the liability to pay the compensation? 18. It is a settled principle of law as has been observed in paragraph no.13 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pappu & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. 18. It is a settled principle of law as has been observed in paragraph no.13 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pappu & Ors. vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba & Anr. (supra) that for shifting the burden to the owner of the vehicle to establish that according to his knowledge the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving licence, the sine qua non is that the insurance company must plead and take the defence that the offending vehicle was not driven by the authorized person having valid licence but after carefully going through the written statement filed by the insurance company, this Court finds that in the written statement, the appellant-opposite party no.3-insurance company has not taken the defence that the opposite party no.2- driver or any other driver of the offending vehicle was not having any valid and effective driving licence on the date of accident. In the absence of such pleading or defence taken by the insurance company, mere non-production of the driving licence by the owner of the vehicle or the driver of the vehicle by itself is not sufficient to draw any presumption that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and on the basis of the same, certainly, the insurance company cannot be absolved of the liability to pay the compensation amount. 19. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant regarding the plea taken by the opposite party no.2 in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02 of 2017 that the opposite party no.2- Foudi Yadav was not the driver of the offending vehicle is concerned, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law; as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Premlata Shukla & Ors. reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476 that the contents of the First Information Report and the charge sheet can be relied upon for the purpose of proving the accident. reported in (2007) 13 SCC 476 that the contents of the First Information Report and the charge sheet can be relied upon for the purpose of proving the accident. Coming to the facts of the case as the opposite party no.2 did not adduce any evidence; on the other hand, the contents of the Ext.1 and 2 which are the FIR and charge sheet of the connected criminal case; go to show that the opposite party no.2 was the driver of the vehicle; hence, the bald pleading only in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 02 of 2017 by the opposite party no.2- driver of the vehicle that he was not the driver of the vehicle cannot be treated as gospel truth in the absence of any evidence in support of that plea either by any of the opposite parties. It is needless to mention the; none of the opposite parties including the appellant-opposite party no.3-insurance company has undisputedly not adduced any evidence before the learned Tribunal. 20. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in not absolving the insurance company of the liability to pay the compensation amount; in the absence of any specific defence taken by the insurance company in its written statement before the learned Tribunal that the offending vehicle was not driven by an authorized person having valid driving licence. Hence, the sole point for determination is answered in the negative. 21. In view of the discussions made above, both the appeals being without any merit are dismissed ex-parte but under the circumstances without any costs. 22. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to remit back the statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- each if any, deposited in both the cases to the learned Tribunal forthwith. 23. Let a copy of this Judgment along with the Lower Court Records be sent to the learned Tribunal forthwith.