JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI , J. 1. Both the appeals are arising out of the same accidents and there are two deceased, and in view of that these two appeals have been heard together with consent of the parties. 2. Heard Mr. Alok Lal, the learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Jitendra Tripathi, the learned counsel for the claimants and Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 who is the owner of the vehicle in question. 3. These appeals have been preferred against the Award dated 19.08.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge-cum-P.O. M.AC.T. Dhanbad in Motor Accident Claim Case Nos. 134/135 of 2018. 4. Mr. Alok Lal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the cases submits that the Insurance Company has preferred both these appeals against the Award on the ground that in spite of finding that the driver was not having a valid driving license in spite of that, the direction was made to pay and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question and he submits that in all the cases that direction cannot be there, and as such, that Award is required to be modified. On this issue he relied in the case of Balu Krishna Chavan vs. The Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. 2022 Live Law (SC) 932 . On the same issue he further relied on the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M/s National Insurance Company Limited Chaibasa District-West Singhbhum vs. Smt. Munaka Devi and Ors. in M.A. No. 315 of 2009 . He further submits that the quantum of compensation is also not rightly calculated and there is negligence on part of the deceased themselves, in view of that also the award is bad in the eye of law. He submitted that the person who was driving the vehicle in question was not having license and in view of that the liability cannot be fastened upon Insurance Company. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rehmani Begum and Ors. vs. Krishan Pal and Ors. in M.A.C. App No. 954 of 2017 and C.M. App. No. 39162 of 2017. 5. On the other hand, Mr. He also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Rehmani Begum and Ors. vs. Krishan Pal and Ors. in M.A.C. App No. 954 of 2017 and C.M. App. No. 39162 of 2017. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Jitendra Tripathi the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the claimants submitted that the learned Court has rightly passed the award and has threadbare discussed the materials on record. He submits that so far the negligence on the part of pillion rider is concerned, that ground has not been taken before the learned court concerned and in view of that, the learned Tribunal has not framed any issue on the same. He submits that the accident has taken place and that has been proved and in view of that, the learned court has rightly passed the order. According to him, the charge-sheet has been submitted against the driver of the truck, and as such the accident has been proved and on these grounds, he submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order that the accident has taken place. 6. Mr. Ashish Kr. Thakur, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the owner of the vehicle submits that the owner has not appeared before the learned court and, in view of that, presumption has been drawn against the owner of the vehicle and he submits that driver of the vehicle has been acquitted by the court. He submits that the eye-witness is not the credential witness. 7. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and after going through the materials on record, it transpires that the said claim has been instituted stating that on 08.11.2017 about 8:00 a.m. one Paresh Nayak(hereinafter referred to as the deceased) and his friend Sudharshan Nayak who were returning home by a motorcycle No. JH-05BV/9243, at about 6:30 p.m. when they reached at Dugni School near Bajrang Bali Temple, P.S & District Saraikela, a truck no. 0R-11J/5725 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed against the motorcycle resultantly both of them sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. It was disclosed that the deceased was the mason/raj-mistri as well as tiles mistry and was earning Rs.700/- per day. The said truck was insured with the appellant herein with policy no. 2013-300501-16-1000370-00-000. 0R-11J/5725 being driven rashly and negligently by its driver dashed against the motorcycle resultantly both of them sustained severe injuries and died on the spot. It was disclosed that the deceased was the mason/raj-mistri as well as tiles mistry and was earning Rs.700/- per day. The said truck was insured with the appellant herein with policy no. 2013-300501-16-1000370-00-000. The learned Tribunal has framed seven issues to decide the said claim case. PW-3, Sri Krishna Nayak and he has claimed to be an eye-witness of the alleged accident and has filed his affidavit stating about the accident. PW-4 was the head of the village and he has stated that they were working as tiles fitting mistri and was earning Rs.700/- per day. PW-5 is said to be ward member of the said area and the deceased persons had worked in his house as tiles mistri. Thus, by way of the said evidence, it has been proved that they were the skilled persons and were earning Rs.700/- per day and if a skilled work is being done, like mason and fitting of tiles, then Rs.700/- per day earning cannot be ruled out and that has been proved. The accident has taken place and in view of that, FIR has been registered and charge-sheet has been submitted against the driver of the truck in question and in view of that the accident has also been proved. The said truck was insured with the appellant herein which has also been an admitted position which has not been denied by either of the parties and that has been taken care of by the learned Tribunal. However, the learned tribunal has found that the driver of the erring truck was not having a valid driving license and in view of that, the right of recovery after payment has been kept open by the insurance company. 8. Though the driver of the offending vehicle was not possessing the driving license and that is the finding of the learned Tribunal and in view of that the recovery has been granted to the Insurance company by the learned Tribunal and view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Swarn Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 294 the insurance company cannot be exonerated from the liability to pay and recover. 9. So far as the argument of Mr. 9. So far as the argument of Mr. Alok Lal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/Insurance Company with regard to negligence on part of the deceased is concerned, that is required to be proved by leading evidence before the learned Tribunal and the Insurance company has failed to do so before the learned Tribunal. Mere absence of fake or invalid driving license or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time are not in themselves defense available to the insurer against either insured or the third party. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurance company has to prove that the insured is the guilty of negligence and failed to exercise the reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who has not disqualified driving at the relevant time, that has not been proved, and as such, the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant is not being accepted by this Court. 10. In view of the above discussions, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the Award. As such these appeals are dismissed. 11. The statutory amount deposited before this Court by the Insurance Company in both the cases, shall be transmitted back to the learned court concerned which will be utilized in satisfying the award within six weeks. 12. If any amount remains after satisfying the award, in terms of the award, the excess amount, if any, will be returned back to the Insurance Company.