JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. Perusal of the record reveals that though, the notice has validly been served upon the Respondent nos.1 to 6 but no one turns up on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 6. Though the respondent no.8 has appeared in this appeal through his advocate but no one turns up on behalf of the respondent no.8 at the time of hearing the appeal, in spite of repeated calls. Therefore, this appeal is being heard ex-parte in respect of respondent nos.1 to 6 and 8.

3. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 23.06.2010 passed by the learned 1st Addl. MACT, Giridih passed in Claim Case No.38 of 2004 whereby and whereunder, learned 1st Addl. MACT, Giridih has passed the award directing the opposite party no.3 before the MACT being National Insurance Company Limited which is respondent no.7 herein this appeal to pay the sum of Rs.3,10,600/- by way of compensation to the dependents of the deceased victim in the motor vehicle accident but held that since, there was no valid and effective driving licence of the Bijay Kant Thakur, the driver of the vehicle which was involved in the said motor vehicle accident and the appellant herein, who is opposite party no.1 of the Claim Case No.38 of 2004 before MACT, Giridih being the owner of the vehicle involved in the said motor vehicle accident, did not file driving license of the driver renewed at the time of accident, hence the Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the aforesaid amount from the owner of the vehicle by initiating proceeding before the executing court without filing a separate suit in this regard.

4. Mr. Prabhash Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has grievance only regarding the second part of the award whereby and whereunder, learned MACT, Giridih has held that Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover the said compensation amount from the appellant herein who is the owner of the vehicle and the appellant thus in this appeal assails the said 2nd part of the award. It is next submitted that the learned MACT, Giridih in the impugned award itself has categorically observed in para 9 at page no.8 of the impugned award that Driving License of the Bijay Kant Thakur, the driver of the alleged vehicle was valid up to 11.08.2006 and therefore on the alleged date of occurrence, the owner and the driver had valid papers regarding the offending vehicle, and the driver of the vehicle has also valid Driving License on the alleged date of occurrence but in the last sub-paragraph of para 9 at page 9 of the impugned award; learned MACT, Giridih took a U-turn without any basis by observing that on perusal of the Exhibit-F, it transpires that the Driving Licence was not valid on the date of occurrence. It is further submitted by Mr. Kumar that the learned MACT erred by losing sight of the fact that since in his deposition, the appellant was examined as a witness in the claim Case, has categorically explained that the driver has gone outside along with his driving license hence his driving license was not available with the appellant and under such circumstances the appellant produced the certified copy of the driving license of the driver concerned obtained from the office of District Transport Officer. It is then submitted that undisputedly as it was a certified copy of the driving license so obviously when the signature of the DTO by whose office certified copy was issued was illegible; it has been mentioned as “Sd” and thereafter a straight line was drawn underneath and below the straight line, “DTO, K.S. Srivastava” has categorically been mentioned. Thus the learned MACT in the absence of any challenge made by any of the parties in a civil proceeding, ought not have raised suspicion regarding the veracity of the contents of the certified copy of the public document more so when it has accepted in the first subparagraph of paragraph 9 of the said award itself that the driving license was valid up to 17.11.2006. Hence,