JUDGMENT : 1. By way of this Appeal, the Appellants have challenged the judgment and award dated 03.11.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.-2), Gandhidham-Kachchh in M.A.C.P. No.385 of 2012. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the appellants Mr. Nilesh M. Shah, who submitted that the appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased – Laxmansinh Madanji Sodha, the owner of the Truck No.GJ-12-Y-7345 who was opponent No.2 before the learned Tribunal. It is further submitted that the deceased died on 09.09.2016 and probably this fact may not have been known to the learned Tribunal and in absence of the owner, the M.A.C.P. has been decided wherein the liability has been laid down on the deceased owner. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal was required to call for the details from the Investigating Officer by following the provisions of Section 166(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to in short as the ‘M.V. Act’) or information under Form 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. It is further submitted that the learned Tribunal should verify the fact of the availability of the Driving License of respondent No.1 since without the driving license, the owner would not have permitted the Driver to drive the Truck which in this case is Truck No.GJ-12-Y-7345. 3. It is further submitted that the Driver of the Truck was holding a valid license of the heavy goods vehicle. Referring to the extract of the Driving License issued by RTO, Bhuj, Kutch, it is submitted that the respondent No.1 – Raghubha Vishanji Sodha, the Driver on the Truck was holding a valid and effective Driving License on the date of accident, i.e. 14.08.2012. Referring to the copy of the Receipt issued by the Regional Transport Office, Bhuj dated 16.07.2012, it is submitted that the driving license was renewed from 18.07.2012 to 03.07.2015, which covered the date of accident, i.e. 14.08.2012. It is also submitted that the driver was holding a License for transport as well as non-transport vehicle and the endorsement in the extract of the Driving License shows that he was holding a valid and effective license of transport vehicle till 03.07.2015. 4. It is also submitted that the driver was holding a License for transport as well as non-transport vehicle and the endorsement in the extract of the Driving License shows that he was holding a valid and effective license of transport vehicle till 03.07.2015. 4. It is also submitted that the liability has been laid down on the owner with a direction to the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount and thereafter, to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It is also submitted that had the heirs of the owner of the vehicle been joined as a party to the matter, they could have placed the Driving License of the driver on record and further stated that the Insurance Company did not examine the Driver to verify the said fact of his authority to drive the truck. 5. Heard the submissions canvassed as above and perused the records of the case. It is required to be mentioned that Section 155 of the M.V. Act provides that incase of death of a person, in whose favour a Certificate of Insurance has been issued, if it occurs after the happening of an event which has given rise to a claim under the provisions of this Chapter, shall not be a bar to the survival of any cause of action arising out of such event against his estate or against the insurer. Hence the cause of action on the death of the owner would continue against the estate of the Policy holder. The liability had been laid down on the owner, observing breach of condition that the driver was not holding a valid and effective license on the date of accident. 6. The learned Tribunal in absence of the driver or the owner to agitate the issue before the Court, should have called for the information from the Investigating Officer in accordance to the provision of Section 166 sub-section (4) of the M.V. Act and such report of the accident forwarded to the learned Claims Tribunal under sub-section (6) of Section 158 of the M.V. Act could have clarified the fact of availability of the license on the date of accident. Further had the learned Tribunal followed the directions laid down in the case of Jai Prakash v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in 2010 2 SCC 607 , then the learned Tribunal could have certainly known about the status of the driving license. 7. Section 169 of the M.V. Act authorizes the learned Tribunal to adopt the procedure in its powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and also of enforcement of witnesses and of allowing the discovery or production of documents and material objections and for such other purpose as may be prescribed. The learned Tribunal could on its own call the Regional Transport Office Authority to verify the existence of the driving license of the respondent No.1. 8. The learned Tribunal is required to be reminded that the Insurance Company is impleaded in the matter under Section 170 of the M.V. Act where in the course of enquiry, the learned Tribunal gets satisfied that there is collusion between the person making the claim and the person against whom the claim is made, or the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the claim, it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct that the insurer who may be liable in respect of such claim, shall be impleaded as party to the proceedings and the insurer so impleaded shall thereupon have, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (2) of Section 150, the right to contest the claim on all or any of the grounds that are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. Thus, it is only when the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest the Claim Petition, the Insurance Company are permitted to defend the Claim Petition. 9. The provision under sub-section (2) of Section 149 gives the right to the Insurance Company to defend the claim petition on the ground that has been laid down in sub-section (2) satisfying the Court on the breach of specific condition of the policy, one of the conditions being that the person driving the vehicle was not duly licensed or the person who was driving the vehicle was disqualified from driving the vehicle. The burden of putting the condition is on the Insurance Company and when proving such condition, the onus cannot be shifted to the claimants to prove the disqualification of the driver who was involved in the matter driving the truck. The R.T.O. of the concerned jurisdiction was not examined in the given case by the Insurance Company, nor, any efforts were made by the Insurance Company by way of any communication to the Investigating Officer to place on record the Report regarding the availability of the license. 10. Certain facts which had come to the notice of the Hon’ble Apex Court and therefore, in the case of Jai Prakash (supra), the directions have been given to the police authority, the learned Claims Tribunal and suggestions for the Insurance Company. The directions by the Hon’ble Apex Court were in consonance with the object of the M.V. Act reminding all the concerned to ensure that all accident victims get compensation. The directions to the police authority and the Claims Tribunal is reproduced hereinunder :- “Directions to Police Authorities 16. The Director General of Police of each State is directed to instruct all Police Stations in his State to comply with the provisions of Section 158(6) of the Act. For this purpose, the following steps will have to betaken by the Station House Officers of the jurisdictional police stations : (i) Accident Information Report in Form No. 54 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 (`AIR' for short) shall be submitted by the police (Station House Officer) to the jurisdictional Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal, within 30 days of the registration of the FIR. In addition to the particulars required to be furnished in Form No. 54, the police should also collect and furnish the following additional particulars in the AIR to the Tribunal: (i) The age of the victims at the time of accident; (ii) The income of the victim; (iii) The names and ages of the dependent family members. (ii) The AIR shall be accompanied by the attested copies of the FIR, site sketch/mahazar/photographs of the place of occurrence, driving licence of the driver, insurance policy (and if necessary, fitness certificate) of the vehicle and postmortem report (in case of death) or the Injury/Wound certificate (in the case of injuries). The names/addresses of injured or dependent family members of the deceased should also be furnished to the Tribunal. The names/addresses of injured or dependent family members of the deceased should also be furnished to the Tribunal. (iii) Simultaneously, copy of the AIR with annexures thereto shall be furnished to the concerned insurance company to enable the Insurer to process the claim. (iv) The police shall notify the first date of hearing fixed by the Tribunal to the victim (injured) or the family of the victim (in case of death) and the driver, owner and insurer. If so directed by the Tribunal, the police may secure their presence on the first date of hearing. 17. To avoid any administrative difficulties in immediate implementation of section 158(6) of the Act, we permit such implementation to be carried out in three stages. In the first stage, all police stations/claims Tribunals in the NCT Region and State Capital regions shall implement the provisions by end of April 2010. In the second stage, all the police stations/claims Tribunals in district headquarters regions shall implement the provisions by the end of August 2010. In the third stage, all police stations/Claims Tribunals shall implement the provisions by the end of December, 2010. The Director Generals shall ensure that necessary forms and infrastructural support is made available to give effect to Section 158(6) of the Act. 18. Section 196 of the Act provides that whoever drives a motor vehicle or causes or allows a motor vehicle to be driven in contravention of the provisions of Section 146 shall be punishable with imprisonment which may be extended to three months, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 1000/-, or with both. Though the statute requires prosecution of the driver and owner of uninsured vehicles, this is seldom done. Thereby a valuable deterrent is ignored. We therefore direct the Director Generals to issue instructions to prosecute drivers and owners of uninsured vehicles under Section 196 of the Act. 19. The Transport Department, Health Department and other concerned departments shall extend necessary co- operation to the Director-Generals to give effect to Section 158(6). Directions to the Claims Tribunals 20. Thereby a valuable deterrent is ignored. We therefore direct the Director Generals to issue instructions to prosecute drivers and owners of uninsured vehicles under Section 196 of the Act. 19. The Transport Department, Health Department and other concerned departments shall extend necessary co- operation to the Director-Generals to give effect to Section 158(6). Directions to the Claims Tribunals 20. The Registrar General of each High Court is directed to instruct all Claims Tribunals in his State to register the reports of accidents receive under Section 158(6) of the Act as applications for compensation under Section 166(4) of the Act and deal with them without waiting for the filing of claim applications by the injured or by the family of the deceased. The Registrar General shall ensure that necessary Registers, forms and other support is extended to the Tribunal to give effect to Section 166(4) of the Act. 21. For complying with section 166(4) of the Act, the jurisdictional Motor Accident Claims Tribunals shall initiate the following steps : (a) The Tribunal shall maintain an Institution Register for recording the AIRs which are received from the Station House Officers of the Police Stations and register them as miscellaneous petitions. If any private claim petitions are directly filed with reference to an AIR, they should also be recorded in the Register. (b) The Tribunal shall list the AIRs as miscellaneous petitions. It shall fix a date for preliminary hearing so as to enable the police to notify such date to the victim (family of victim in the event of death) and the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Once the claimant/s appear, the miscellaneous application shall be converted to claim petition. Where a claimant/s file the claim petition even before the receipt of the AIR by the Tribunal, the AIR may be tagged to the claim petition. (c) The Tribunal shall enquire and satisfy itself that the AIR relates to a real accident and is not the result of any collusion and fabrication of an accident (by any `Police Officer - Advocate - Doctor' nexus, which has come to light in several cases). (d) The Tribunal shall by a summary enquiry ascertain the dependent family members/legal heirs. The jurisdictional police shall also enquire and submit the names of the dependent legal heirs. (d) The Tribunal shall by a summary enquiry ascertain the dependent family members/legal heirs. The jurisdictional police shall also enquire and submit the names of the dependent legal heirs. (e) The Tribunal shall categories the claim cases registered, into those where the insurer disputes liability and those where the insurer does not dispute the liability. (f) Wherever the insurer does not dispute the liability under the policy, the Tribunal shall make an endeavour to determine the compensation amount by a summary enquiry or refer the matter to the Lok Adalat for settlement, so as to dispose of the claim petition itself, within a time frame not exceeding six months from the date of registration of the claim petition. (g) The insurance companies shall be directed to deposit the admitted amount or the amount determined, with the claims tribunals within 30 days of determination. The Tribunals should ensure that the compensation amount is kept in Fixed deposit and disbursed as per the directions contained in General Manager, KSRTC v. Susamma Thomas [ 1994 (2) SCC 176 ]. (h) As the proceedings initiated in pursuance of Section 158(6) and 166(4) of the Act, are different in nature from an application by the victim/s under Section 166(1) of the Act, Section 170 will not apply. The insurers will therefore be entitled to assist the Tribunal (either independently or with the owners of the vehicles) to verify the correctness in regard to the accident, injuries, age, income and dependents of the deceased victim and in determining the quantum of compensation. 22. The aforesaid directions to the Tribunals are without prejudice to the discretion of each Tribunal to follow such summary procedure as it deems fit as provided under Section 169 of the Act. Many Tribunals instead of holding an inquiry into the claim by following suitable summary procedure, as mandated by Section 168 and 169 of the Act, tend to conduct motor accident cases like regular civil suits. This should be avoided. The Tribunal shall take an active role in deciding and expeditious disposal of the applications for compensation and make effective use of Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, to determine the just compensation.” 11. This should be avoided. The Tribunal shall take an active role in deciding and expeditious disposal of the applications for compensation and make effective use of Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872, to determine the just compensation.” 11. In Jai Prakash (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court had passed the directions to Claim Tribunal sensitizing them to take an active role in deciding expeditiously the application for compensation by effective use of Section 165 of the Evidence Act, 1872 to determine just compensation. In Summary Inquiry procedure, the learned Tribunal is not required to deal with the M.A.C.T. cases like Regular Civil Suits. 12. Section 169 of the M.V. Act and Section 165 of the Evidence Act gives ample power to the learned Tribunal for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and to obtain appropriate proof of relevant facts, the learned Tribunal may ask any question, in any form, at any time to any witness or of the parties about any fact relevant or irrelevant and may order the production of any documents or any, and neither parties nor their Agent shall be entitled to make any objection to such question or order. The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 13. Section 169 of the M.V. Act and Section 165 of the Evidence Act confers vast unrestricted powers on the learned Tribunal to ask questions relevant or irrelevant for the production of the documents or material objections and even of compelling discovery. Incase any question crosses into irrelevancy, the same would not transgress beyond the contours of the powers of the Courts, neither of the party has the right to raise any objection to any such question and during the cross examination, if the Court interjects with a view to ascertain the correct position it would not be wrong since the Court would have the power to do so. 14. 14. Here in the present matter, the vehicle involved is a truck which is a transport vehicle. Had the learned Tribunal been pro-active, in the present matter, then on its own could have brought on record the necessary documents by way of discovery or production or by direction to the Investigating Officer to produce the details of accident in Form No.54 which is Accident Information Report under the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989 wherein as per the particulars to be furnished, Column No.7 Form No.54 under Rule 150(1)(2) deals with the driving license particulars and had this exercise been undertaken by the learned Tribunal, then necessary documents would have come on record to decide the issue. 15. The learned Tribunal by laying down the liability on the owner / driver of the vehicle had observed in Paragraph 8.3 as under :- “So far as the case on hand is concerned, it is on record that on the date of accident, driver of the vehicle. Opponent No.1 was not possessing effective license and had not renewed his license, after its expiration. As such, it appears that there is a breach of policy on the part of the Opponent No.2. Therefore, upon bare reading of the observations made in para No. para 105(ix) and (x) of Swaran Singh (supra), depicts the fact that this Tribunal can pass an order, whereby insurer can be directed to first pay amount of compensation in favour of the claimant and after the payment is made, insurer can recover the same owner/driver of the offending vehicle. It is nowhere mentioned by Hon’ble Apex Court in the Swaran Singh’s (supra) that Tribunals are not empowered to pass an order of pay and recover. In view of the above referred discussion and ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra), insurance company is required to be directed to first pay amount of compensation in favour of the claimant and thereafter, insurance company can recover the amount of compensation from the owner and/or driver of the offending vehicle. Learned Advocate Ms. Learned Advocate Ms. Sachde has also relied upon a judgment of the Honourable High Court of Gujarat, in the Case of Patel Vishnubhai Lakhabhai V/s. Patel Jasvantibhai Dahyabhai Driver Cum Owner of Motorcycle, reported in 2016 (0) AIJEL-HC 235634, wherein it is held that in case of no license at all, Insurance Company can not be directed to first pay and then recover from the owner of the vehicle. So far as the case on hand is concerned, it is related to non-review of license, therefore, ratio laid down in the case of Patel Vishnubhai can not be made applicable to the case on hand.” 16. This observation of the learned Tribunal is on the Driving License produced at Exhibit 25 which was stated to be submitted by the claimant. The learned Tribunal observing the driving license Exhibit 25, has considered the period of the LMV NT and HGV Class vehicle is 4/7/2009 to 3/7/2012 and thereafter to note that it is not renewed and the date of accident is 14/8/2012. Hence, the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the respondent No.1 was possessing a effective Driving License at the time of accident, and had not renewed his license, and found it to breach of condition on the part of respondent No.2. 17. At this stage, learned Advocate Mr. Nilesh M. Shah for the claimants submitted that Exhibit 25 was not produced by the driver himself. The necessary fact regarding the same could have been proved only by the RTO Officer who could have verified the record and could have deposed of having receiving the fees for the renewal of the driving license which was on 16.07.2012 and the driving license which came to be renewed from 18.07.2012 to 13.07.2015 which covered the date of accident. 18. In view of the documents which are produced on record of this Court, wherein Civil Application No.1 of 2024 is filed to record them as additional evidence, this Court is of the view that if those documents produced on record, are considered to be valid and effective then the Insurance Company would loose its opportunity to challenge the same and such liberty can be granted only by remanding the matter to the concerned Tribunal where the evidence can be recorded to that aspect. 19. In view of the reasons given hereinabove, the present appeal stands allowed. 19. In view of the reasons given hereinabove, the present appeal stands allowed. The judgment and award dated 03.11.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.-2), Gandhidham- Kachchh in M.A.C.P. No.385 of 2012 is quashed and set aside. M.A.C.P. No.385 of 2012 is ordered to be restored on the File of the learned Tribunal. All the parties are directed to co-operate with the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal is ordered to re- consider its judgment and award, permitting the heirs of the owner and/or driver to produce the license on record, as the heirs of the owner are willing to produce so and thereafter on re-examination, only on that issue of license, the matter be heard on merits and be decided, preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of writ of the order of this Court, and during this process if any examination of witnesses by either of the parties is required, then the learned Tribunal is directed to consider the same. 20. In view of the above, both the Civil Application/ s also stand disposed of. Record and proceedings, if any, be sent back to the concerned Court / Tribunal forthwith.