Honble Amitava Lala, J.—By agreement of the parties the appeal is heard on contest on informal papers.

2. This appeal is made by the insurance company against an award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mathura dated 7th August,2006 challenging involvement of the tempo in the accident and validity of driving licence of the driver.

3. The fact remains that the deceased on 19th January, 2005 had gone from Police Line to Holigate, Mathura to purchase goods. While he was coming back at about 9.30 P.M. of the fateful day, a tempo bearing No. U.P. 85M-9048 rashly and negligently driven hit him in front of Roti Godam, which caused death.

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company has submitted that in the F.I.R., there was no mention of tempo No. U.P.-85 M- 9048. Therefore it can not be said that the accident was caused by tempo No. U.P.-85 M-9048. On the other hand, the driver and the owner have admitted that the accident was caused by the tempo bearing No. U.P. 85M-9048.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted that the driver had forged licence for the period of 22.8.03 to 21.8.06. In further, the claimants themselves produced the driving licence. But we find from the impugned judgment that the insurance company had produced Mr. Makhan Singh, Senior Clerk, Assistant Regional Transport Office, Mathura as witness, who on the basis of original register certified that the driving licence of the driver Mahesh Chandra Sharma was valid for the period between 31.12.03 and 30.12.06. He further deposed that he is not aware whether paper No. 24G/4 is valid or not because the concerned register is not with him.

6. Therefore, the tribunal held that the driver had valid licence, at the relevant point of time.

7. Apparently we do not find any mistake in drawing inference by the tribunal in respect of both the issues. According to us, admission is the best evidence. When driver and owner both of them admitted that the accident was held by tempo and the witness of the insurance company himself stated that the driver of the tempo had valid licence on the fateful day and time, there is no apparent scope of argument on the part of the insurance company on that score. However, it is appropriate that we deal with the arguments which have been advanced by the contesting parties on the question of law.

8. By citing (2004) 8 SCC 517, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others learned Counsel appearing for the insurance company contended that if statutory defences are available to the insurer and inspite of the same the payment is directed to be made to the claimants with a permission of recovery then the security will have to be furnished by the owner of the offending vehicle for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants as well as the offending vehicle will be attached as a part of the security. This observation of the Supreme Court was again reiterated in a judgment reported in (2004) 8 SCC 667, Pramod Kumar Agrawal and another v. Mushtari Begum (Smt.) and others.

9. According to us, particularly in a case of beneficial piece of legislation while the Court is discharging equitable justice, straight jacket formula cannot be applied in each and every case. There might be a case where no order can be passed for recovery. There might also be a case where order will be passed with a right of recovery. In further, there might be a case where there would be a security on account of the driver. We repeatedly hold and say that a driver is actually liable for an accident when owner is vicariously liable for the same. The insurance company is indemnifier of the owner. Owner of the vehicle is authorising his driver to drive the vehicle upon considering his capacity of driving. However, in the way what happens with the vehicle and the driver, the owner may not have any control yet he is responsible for the cause of accident. In our country where unemployment is major factor m