JUDGMENT : C.S. SUDHA, J. These appeals have been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (the Act) by the first respondent/owner in O.P.(MV) Nos.1381 and 1382 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal (the Tribunal), aggrieved by the common Award dated 27/06/2019. The respondents in both the appeals are the claim petitioners and respondents 2 and 3 respectively in the petitions. In these appeals, the parties and the documents will be referred to as described in the original petitions. 2. According to the claim petitioners, on 19/10/2014 at about 06:30 p.m., while they were travelling on motorcycle bearing registration no.KL-16-F-1099 as rider and pillion rider through Venjaramoodu – Attingal public road and when they reached near the place by name Valakkadu, tipper lorry bearing registration no.KL-16-F-8322 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner knocked them down, as a result of which they sustained grievous injuries. 3. The first respondent-owner and the second respondent-driver of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte. 4. The third respondent-insurer filed written statement admitting the policy but denying negligence on the part of the 2 nd respondent-driver. It was also contended that the vehicle had no valid fitness certificate at the time of the accident and hence the policy condition was violated. 5. Before the Tribunal, Exts.A1 to A16 were marked on the side of the claim petitioners. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents. 6. The Tribunal on consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent-driver of the offending vehicle resulting in the incident and hence awarded an amount of Rs.4,06,712/- to the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) 1381/2014 and Rs.3,22,212/- to the claim petitioner in O.P.(MV) 1382/2014 together with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till realisation along with proportionate costs. The third respondent/insurer has been given the liberty to recover the award amount from the first respondent/owner. Aggrieved by the Award, the first respondent/owner has come up in appeal. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals are whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 8. Heard both sides. 9. Aggrieved by the Award, the first respondent/owner has come up in appeal. 7. The only point that arises for consideration in these appeals are whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court. 8. Heard both sides. 9. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle that the Tribunal committed a gross error in giving liberty to the third respondent/insurer to recover the amount from him without proof of the contention of the latter that the vehicle did not have a valid fitness certificate at the time of the incident. In support of the argument reference was made to the dictums in Mumthas v. Rafeek , 2022 KHC 524 and Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Kottayam v. Santhoshkumar , 2021 KHC 747 10. In Mumthas (Supra), a Single Bench of this Court held that when a contention regarding absence of driving license or fitness certificate is taken, the same has to be established by giving notice to the owner and driver of the offending vehicle to produce the certificate before the Court. If they fail to produce the documents on receipt of notice, an adverse inference regarding absence of the documents can be taken. In the absence of such a course of action being adopted, the Tribunal is not to conclude regarding absence of driving license or fitness certificate on the basis of the contention taken up in the written statement to the said effect. 10.1. In Santhoshkumar (Supra), a Single Bench of this Court held that even after the Award is passed, if the owner of the offending vehicle is able to produce the necessary certificate(s) during the recovery proceedings, the Tribunal can consider the sanctity of the documents with due notice and hearing to the insurer, and reverse the order of recovery. 11. Coming to the case on hand, the relevant portion of paragraph no.4 of the written statement of the third respondent/insurer reads thus- “............But at the time of alleged accident the said Tipper lorry had no fitness certificate and thus the 1 st respondent violated the terms and conditions of policy issued by this respondent. Hence the 3rd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 1 s t respondent (insured). Hence the 3rd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 1 s t respondent (insured). This Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the 1 st respondent to produce the fitness certificate if any, to the above said Tipper Lorry at the time of accident for verification, otherwise adverse inference may be drawn. ” (Emphasis supplied) The first respondent/owner does not have a case that he had not received summons or notice from the Tribunal. Despite receipt of summons, he chose to remain ex-parte. In the light of the pleadings in paragraph no.4 of the written statement of the third respondent/insurer, a further application by the third respondent/insurer for directing the first respondent/owner to produce the fitness certificate is not necessary. Further, the case of the third respondent in the written statement has neither been denied nor disputed. When a fact is neither denied nor disputed, the same will have to be taken as admitted, for which no proof is required. 12. After the passing of the Award, I.A. No.5666/2019 in O.P.(MV) 1382/2014 and I.A.No.5667/2019 in O.P.(MV) 1381/20214 were filed by the first respondent/owner for setting aside the ex-parte Award. Paragraph nos.3 and 4 of the affidavit accompanying the application read thus- “3. In the original O.P I have received notice and entrusted the same with one Advocate who is practicing at Thiruvananthapuram. During 2015 I have lost my mobile phone irrecoverably during a bus journey in which the contact number and name of the said advocate was feeded. I was under the impression that the said advocate will file vakkalath and contest the case on my behalf. But unfortunately I could not remember his name and even trace out his advocate office 4. While so on 25-06-2019, when I enquired about the status of the case, it is known from the office of the court that the said O.P is allowed in part as narrated in paragraph 2 above. Upon enquiry made by my present counsel on 08- 07-2019 it is known to me that the earlier counsel had not filed vakalath before the Hon'ble Tribunal and not filed my written statement.” 13. The Tribunal as per orders dated 15/10/2019 dismissed the aforesaid applications. Copies of the applications and the orders were handed over to me during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the first respondent/owner. The Tribunal as per orders dated 15/10/2019 dismissed the aforesaid applications. Copies of the applications and the orders were handed over to me during the course of arguments by the learned counsel for the first respondent/owner. In the light of the averments in the affidavit accompanying I.A.Nos.5666/2019 and 5667/2019 seeking setting aside of the Award, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the same. 14. The last portion of the operative part of the Award reads thus- “5) 3 rd respondent is allowed to reimburse the award amount from the 1 st respondent on initially depositing the same in the name of the petitioner. However, the right to reimbursement shall become inoperative, if in a proceedings for recovery the 1 st respondent produces a valid fitness certificate and a finding to that effect is entered into that petition subject to reasonable cost to the insurance company.” Referring to this, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the first respondent/owner that as liberty has been granted by the Tribunal to establish his contention, the matter may be remanded so as to enable the first respondent/owner to establish his defence. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent/owner, the vehicle was taken to the authorised workshop for conducting necessary tests for getting the fitness certificate. The tests were completed and the vehicle was taken out for trial run, at which time, the vehicle was exhibiting a board to the effect that it was on trial run. The accident took place when the vehicle was on trial run. It is also submitted that the first respondent/owner had taken steps sufficiently early for the fitness certificate renewed. However, some objections were raised by the official concerned and hence the vehicle was again presented before the authorised workshop for carrying out the necessary repairs. Thereafter, when the vehicle was taken out for trial run, it met with the accident in this case. However, the first respondent/owner was never able to establish the same and so, interest of justice requires the matter to be remanded for a fresh consideration, so that he can file written statement and adduce evidence to establish his defence, goes the argument. 15. However, the first respondent/owner was never able to establish the same and so, interest of justice requires the matter to be remanded for a fresh consideration, so that he can file written statement and adduce evidence to establish his defence, goes the argument. 15. The relevant portion of the operative part of the Award only means that if the first respondent/owner produces the fitness certificate having validity at the time of the accident, during the recovery proceedings, he can be exonerated of his liability. This does not mean that the Tribunal is to reopen the matter or conduct a fresh inquiry regarding the defence now set up by the first respondent/owner. It also does not mean that the Revenue Recovery Authority must conduct an inquiry regarding the defence of the first respondent/owner. What is contemplated is only the production of the fitness certificate valid as on the date of the accident. Even now the first respondent/owner is unable to produce the fitness certificate to show that the same was valid at the time of the accident. In such circumstances, I do not find any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal by which liberty has been given to the third respondent/insurer to recover the amount from the first respondent-owner. In the result, the appeals sans merit are dismissed. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.