Judgment : (Arvind Kumar Verma, J.) 1. Since both these claim cases are arising out of the same accident, therefore, they are being heard and decided together by this common order. 2. By the instant appeals, the appellant/Insurance Company is challenging the legality and validity of the impugned awards dated 13/12/2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, C.G (in short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.307/2016 and 111/2016, whereby the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.16,17,315/- on account of the death of the deceased Silochni and 5,93,551/- on account of injury sustained by the injured Leena Sinha. 3. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that on 05/04/2016 at about 12.30 PM, deceased Silochni was driving her Scooty and pillion rider was her friend Leena Sinha at that time suddenly from back side one tanker bearing registration No.M.H.43/U/5169 came and dashed the aforesaid scooty because of that the driver of the said vehicle Smt. Silochini Tandon received grevious injury and she succumbed to the said injuries on the same day and the pillion rider Leena Sinha also received injuries on the vital part of the body. 4. Being aggrieved, the claim petition was filed by the mother and married sister and adopted son on behalf of the deceased Silochini which was bearing Motor Accident Claim Case No.307/2016 and the injured filed the Motor Accident Claim Case No.111/2016. 5. The Insurance Company filed its written statement and denied the averments made by the claimants of the deceased and injured and submitted that the claimants of the deceased as well as the injured have not produced the documents with regard to dependency on the deceased and the injured has not produced any document with regard to her age, monthly income and age and further stated that in absence of the same they are not entitled for any compensation from the Tribunal and they have demanded the excessive compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim cases. 6. The Driver and owner of the offending vehicle remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. 7. The MACT, Durg framed the issues and after evaluating the evidence and the documents awarded a compensation of Rs.16,17,315/- to the claimants of the deceased Silochini and compensation of Rs.5,93,551/- to the injured Leena Sinha with an interest of 7% p.a. and the liability for making payment was fastened on the appellant/Insurance Company. 7. The MACT, Durg framed the issues and after evaluating the evidence and the documents awarded a compensation of Rs.16,17,315/- to the claimants of the deceased Silochini and compensation of Rs.5,93,551/- to the injured Leena Sinha with an interest of 7% p.a. and the liability for making payment was fastened on the appellant/Insurance Company. Being aggrieved by the said award the Insurance Company has filed these instant appeals. 8. Learned counsel for the Appellant/Insurance Company would contend that in para 13 of the award, the Tribunal has wrongly held that the document of driving license of Driver Vipin Upadhyay has not been proved validly. He would next contend that as per the property seizure memo, the Driving License No.831/STR/05 was seized by the police and the photo copy of driving license of Respondent No.4 was produced by the claimants before the Tribunal, in which also the number of driving license is shown as 831/STR/05. He would next contend that the driver and owner of the insured vehicle remained ex- parte till the final decision of the Tribunal and did not submit any written statement and did not satisfy the initial burden of proof of valid driving license which has been settled by this Court in the matter of DM, National Insurance Vs. Ranjeet Toppo ( MAC No.356/2015 CGHC-DB ) which states that the initial burden of proof of valid driving license is with the driver and owner of the vehicle. He would next contend that the driving license No.831/STR/05 which was seized by the police vide property seizure memo and produced by the claimant before the Tribunal, was verified by the insurance company whereby it came to fore that Ex. D/4, which is a report under Form 54 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 issued by the RTO, Sultanpur the said driving license is issued in the name of one Bhagauti S/o Amarpal Singh, R/o Lahna, Mochva, Sultapur. He would next contend that as per the statement of insurance witness F.R. Uikey, the insurance policy Ex. D-1 clearly mentions that the driver of the insured vehicle must hold a valid and effective driving license. He would next contend that as per the statement of insurance witness F.R. Uikey, the insurance policy Ex. D-1 clearly mentions that the driver of the insured vehicle must hold a valid and effective driving license. He would next contend that the process fee was paid by the Insurance Company as per order-sheet dated 27/09/2018 to the R.T.O. Sultanpur for witness purpose was sent to R.T.O. Sultanpur and due to that as per the order-sheet dated 26/10/2018, the R.T.O. Sultanpur also sent a letter of clarification Ex. D/5 and particulars of Driving License Ex. D/6, the same could not be considered by the Tribunal. He would next contend that in the cross-examination of insurance witness F.R. Uike, the document Ex. D/5 and D/6 was unchallenged by the other parties before the tribunal and the said documents are undisputed documents. He would next contend that at the time of accident the driver Vipin Upadhyay was driving the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.M.H.43/U/5169 without having any valid and effective driving license, at the time of accident, therefore, the appellant insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and the liability has wrongly been fastened upon the appellant insurance company. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents/claimants submits that the Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter has rightly fastened liability on the insurance company. Alternatively he submits that if this Court comes to the conclusion that the insurance company is liable to be exonerated from its liability, the considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others, (2017) 4 SCC 796 and Shivawwa and another Vs. Branch Manager, National India Insurance Company Limited and another, (2018) 5 SCC 762 , the order of pay and recover may be passed in this case. 10. None for Driver & Owner of the offending vehicle. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of Claims Tribunal. 12. So far as, the ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant with respect to breach of policy is concerned I have perused the Ex. 10. None for Driver & Owner of the offending vehicle. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of Claims Tribunal. 12. So far as, the ground raised by learned counsel for the appellant with respect to breach of policy is concerned I have perused the Ex. D/4 which is a Form 54 report wherein in the copy of the driving license ‘STR’ has been clearly reflected whereas the Tribunal in its order at para 13 has mentioned HTR for driving license, therefore, the said observation of the tribunal appears to be wrong. Perusal of the report also shows that the license belong to one Bhagouti Dayal Singh, S/o Amarpal Singh and the said driving license is for Motor Cycle only, therefore, it is a case of fake driving license. 13. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Poonam Kesarwani & Ors. {(2009 (4) TAC 816)} has held thus in para 10:- 10. Section 76 of the evidence Act give the right to obtain a certified copy of a public document which any person has a right to inspect on payment of fee. A certified copy of the entries made in public record is required to be issued on payment of fee in Form 54 as laid down by Rule 150 (2). Form 54 being a certified copy of a public document, namely, the state register of driving license need not be proved by examining a witness. Once a certified copy of the entries made in the register maintained under Section 26 (1) read with Rule 23 is issued in Form 54 it is admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the Evidence Act and no further proof of Form 54 by oral evidence by examining witness is required. 14. R.T.O. Sultanpur has issued details of license under Form 54 as laid down by Rule 150 (2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which is a certified copy of a public document. Once a certified copy of the entries made in the register maintained under Section 26 (1) read with Rule 23 is issued in Form 54, it is admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the Evidence Act and no other proof is required of Form 54 by oral evidence by examining witnesses. 15. Once a certified copy of the entries made in the register maintained under Section 26 (1) read with Rule 23 is issued in Form 54, it is admissible in evidence under Section 77 of the Evidence Act and no other proof is required of Form 54 by oral evidence by examining witnesses. 15. Therefore, on account of there being breach of policy conditions, the Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the claimants. However, considering the fact that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was duly insured with the insurance company, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others, (2017) 4 SCC 796 and Shivawwa and another Vs. Branch Manager, National India Insurance Company Limited and another, (2018) 5 SCC 762 , this Court feels it proper to order for “pay and recover” in this case, meaning thereby that the Insurance Company shall first pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from owner & driver of the offending vehicle in accordance with law. 16. In view of forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The doctrine of pay and recover shall be applied and the Insurance Company is exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants/respondent. Therefore, the appellant/Insurance Company is directed to first pay the award amount and then to recover it from the driver namely- Vipin Upadhyay and Owner of the vehicle registration No. M.H. 43 U 5169, namely- Agarwal Industrial Corporation Limited. No order as to costs.