ORDER : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. Heard the parties. 1. The Insurance Company is in appeal against the judgment and award of compensation in Compensation Case No. 230 of 2004, whereby and whereunder, a compensation of Rs. 7,15,000/- with interest @ 9% from the date of award has been allowed in favour of the claimants. 2. The facts are not in dispute that the deceased Bachan Sahu died in a motor vehicle accident involving the truck bearing Registration No. BPV-9246 which was under the insurance cover of the appellant Insurance Company. 3. The appeal has been preferred mainly on two counts: Firstly, the vehicle in question was being plied on a forged and fabricated driving license. The Insurance Company adduced into evidence Ext. A which was a verification report issued under the signature of the D.T.O., Giridih stating that the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was not issued from his office. Thus, there was a fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Second ground on which the judgment is assailed, is the award of Rs.2,25,000/- under conventional head, is not as per the ratio of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi , reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 4. Learned counsel for the owner of the vehicle has submitted that the Tribunal has assigned specific reason for not admitting into evidence Ext.A which was only marked as exhibit but the signatory of the document was not examined by the appellant company. Further, even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having the valid driving license at the time of accident, the owner cannot be saddled with liability for paying the compensation in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 and Nirmala Kothari Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2020) 4 SCC 49 . 5. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that there is no error and infirmity in the award of compensation. 6. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 and Nirmala Kothari Vs United India Insurance Company Ltd. (2020) 4 SCC 49 . 5. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that there is no error and infirmity in the award of compensation. 6. Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides, there is merit in the appeal so far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as the admissible compensation under the conventional head will be Rs.84,000/- and not Rs.2,25,000/- as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi (supra). 7. So far as the driving license of the driver is concerned, Ext. A is the report of Ranvir Kumar, Surveyor of the National Insurance Co. Ltd., and no document has been adduced issued by the D.T.O., Giridih. There is force in the argument advanced on behalf of the owner of the vehicle that even if it is assumed that the document was not issued from the Issuing Branch, the matter for consideration is if the owner can be saddled with liability in such cases? 8. Law on this point is no longer res-integra and has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Swaran Singh, case (supra) and Rishi Pal Singh Vs New India Assuracne Company Limited 2022 SCC OnLine SC 2119, that unless and until there is some material to show that there was collusion on the part of the owner of the vehicle with the driver, it cannot be presumed that the owner had knowledge of the vehicle being driven by the driver under a fake driving licence. Owner cannot be saddled with the responsibility of verifying the driving licence from the issuing authority. If, the vehicle was permitted to be plied without any license, then it could have been different. There is no infirmity in the finding of the Tribunal that there was no fundamental breach of the insurance policy Under the circumstance and for the reasons, discussed above, this Misc. Appeal is partly allowed to the extent that instead of compensation of Rs. 7,15,000/-, the claimants will be entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,74,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim application. Appeal is partly allowed to the extent that instead of compensation of Rs. 7,15,000/-, the claimants will be entitled to a compensation of Rs.5,74,000/- with interest @ 6% from the date of filing of claim application. Payment shall be made within one month from the date of the order before the learned Tribunal and the same shall be disbursed to the respective claimants on proper identification as per the terms of disbursement decided by the Tribunal. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. The statutory amount, which was deposited before this Court at the time of filing of this appeal, shall be remitted to the Tribunal for disbursement to the claimants, which will be adjusted against the compensation amount.