JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, learned counsel for the parties.The instant Misc. Appeal has been filed against the judgment/Award of compensation dated 01.06.2015 passed by learned District Judge 1st-cum-MACT, Bokaro, in TMV No.73 of 2008 along with interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization has been allowed in favour of the claimants directing the appellant-Insurance Company to make payment and further liberty has been given to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. 2. The appeal has been preferred mainly on the ground that since there is breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, as the driver was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident, therefore, Insurance Company should not have been directed to pay the compensation amount. 3. However, it is evident that it has not been disputed that the offending vehicle was under the insurance cover of the appellant- Insurance Company. The other facts have also not been disputed. 4. It is evident from the charge-sheet (Ext.4) that the offending vehicle was being driven by one Sona Kumar at the relevant time of accident. From, the surveyor’s report addressed to the Sr. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited (Ext.A) it is evident that the driver was having valid and effective driving licence at the relevant time of accident. 5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company that the driving licence was of light motor vehicle. However, at the time of accident the vehicle, in question, was being driven as heavy motor vehicle. 6. It is rather surprising that the learned Tribunal has not recorded a finding regarding breach of insurance policy, as it has given straight way right of recovery to the appellant- Insurance company, which is not sustainable as the said order as ex-facie perverse as there has not been any discussion on this point. 7. Without recording a finding that the vehicle was being plied without any valid driving licence or permit, the right of recovery cannot be given for committing breach of terms and conditions against the owner of the vehicle. 8. Although no cross-objection has been filed on behalf of owner against that finding, but a palpable error cannot be allowed by granting right of recovery against the owner of the vehicle. 8. Although no cross-objection has been filed on behalf of owner against that finding, but a palpable error cannot be allowed by granting right of recovery against the owner of the vehicle. Unless there is evidence that the owner in a collusive manner had permitted the vehicle being driven without valid insurance policy, liability cannot be saddled on the owner of the vehicle in view of the law settled by Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & Ors., 2004 (3) SCC 297 . 9. Further there is no evidence on record to infer that the offending vehicle was a heavy motor vehicle and not a light motor vehicle, for which the driver had a valid driving licence. 10. The impugned order/judgment being not sustainable so far right of recovery is concerned, is accordingly set aside. The instant Misc. Appeal preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company fails and is accordingly dismissed. 11. The appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the compensation amount within a month of this order, and thereafter the same will be disbursed to the claimants by the Tribunal on terms fixed by it. 12. However, the statutory amount, if any, deposited at the time of preferring the instant Misc. Appeal shall be sent to the learned Tribunal so as to disburse/adjust against the compensation amount.