JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Executing Court, in terms whereof, in the execution preferred by the Insurance Company, the Executing Court has ordered as under:- “As per para No.29 the order of Tribunal, the insurance company has been liberty to recover 50% of the amount paid to the petitioner from the respondents and the reason for this recovery of 50% is given by the Tribunal to be a fake driving licence of respondent No.1 Surinder Singh. Surinder Singh was driving the vehicle of respondent No.1 and shared the relationship of master and servant. As Surinder was acting on behalf of the owner by driving the vehicle of the owner, but it was bound in duty of owner to have checked the driving licence before keeping him as driver on the truck. In the view of the circumstances, both driver and owner are jointly and severally are liable to make this 50% of the total amount to the petitioner. Accordingly, the objection is disposed of. Let warrant of attachment be issued in favour of respondent No.1 on filing particulars within a week and report be called on or before 5.1.2018. 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that a claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by claimant Mansukh against the three respondents. These three respondents were Surinder Singh, the driver of the vehicle, Sardar Surinder Singh, the present petitioner, who was the owner of the vehicle and National Insurance Company. The facts, which led to the filing of the claim petition were that according to the claimant on the fateful day i.e., on 24.05.2005, when the claimant was going to Shahpur and when he reached near Hanuman Mandir in the main Shahpur Bazar, he was hit by a vehicle bearing registration number HP-38-A-8959, which was being driven by Surinder Singh in high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, as a result whereof, the claimant suffered injuries. 3. To cut the story short, on account of this incident, compensation to the tune of Rs.6 lac was claimed by the claimant. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties before the learned Tribunal, the following four issues were framed:- 1. 3. To cut the story short, on account of this incident, compensation to the tune of Rs.6 lac was claimed by the claimant. 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties before the learned Tribunal, the following four issues were framed:- 1. “Whether the respondent No.1 was driving the offending vehicle HP-38-A-8959 in a rash and negligent manner on the road on 24.05.2005 at Shahpur and had struck it against the petitioner thereby causing grievous injuries to him? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? OPP. 3. Whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle as alleged? OPR3 4. Whether respondents No.1 and 2 were plying the offending vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as alleged? OPR3.” 5. On the strength of the evidence, which was led by the parties in support of their respective contentions, the issues were decided as under:- Issue Number Status Issue No.1 Yes Issue No.2 Yes Issue No.3 Yes Issue No.4 No 6. The claim petition was decided by the learned Tribunal, in the following terms:- “In view of my findings on issues above, the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs against the respondents. However as the vehicle was insured the respondent no.3, so it will indemnify the entire compensation amount to the petitioner. The petitioner is held entitled to the compensation amounting to Rs.2,40,000/-which shall be paid by the respondent No.3 along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till its deposit. The amount be deposited within one month from today, failing which the petitioner shall be at liberty to recover the amount by filing execution petition for recovery. Since, the respondent No.1 Surinder Singh driver was driving the vehicle on the strength of the fake driving license, so the respondent No.3 Insurance Company is given liberty to recover 50% of the amount, out of the total amount which it will pay to the petitioner with interest, by filing execution.” 7. After the award was announced by the learned Tribunal, National Insurance Company filed an application for the proceedings thereof claiming the recovery of 50% and in the said application the impugned order stands passed by the learned Executing Court. 8. After the award was announced by the learned Tribunal, National Insurance Company filed an application for the proceedings thereof claiming the recovery of 50% and in the said application the impugned order stands passed by the learned Executing Court. 8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order is perverse and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 9. Learned Senior Counsel took the Court through the award passed by the learned Tribunal and argued that out of the four issues which were framed, issue No.3 and 4, inter alia, were to the effect as to whether respondent No.1 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle and whether respondents No.1 and 2 were plying the offending vehicle in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. 10. Learned Senior Counsel thereafter referred to the findings returned by the learned Tribunal in Para-19, 21 and 23 of the award and submitted that perusal thereof demonstrated that the findings returned by the learned Tribunal were to the effect that respondent No.1, the driver of the vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving licence, however, the owner of the vehicle was not having knowledge about the fake licence and owner of the vehicle had taken every precaution before employing the driver and his licence was also verified by the owner from the Regional Licencing Authority, SDM Office Nurpur. 11. Learned Senior Counsel thus submitted that in this backdrop, if one goes through the relief granted by the learned Tribunal, perusal thereof would demonstrate that the learned Tribunal allowed the petition against the respondents, but, directed that the Insurance Company shall firstly pay the entire compensation to the claimants. Thereafter, learned Tribunal went on to hold that as respondent No.1 Surinder Singh (Driver), was driving the vehicle on the strength of a fake driving licence, therefore, respondent No.3 Insurance Company was given liberty to recover 50% of the amount out of the total amount by filing execution. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that this liberty granted to the Insurance Company was to recover the amount from the driver and not from the present petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that this liberty granted to the Insurance Company was to recover the amount from the driver and not from the present petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that if one peruses the execution petition filed by the Insurance Company, perusal thereof also demonstrates that the Insurance Company was aware of this fact and, therefore, the execution was sought only against “respondent” and not “respondents”. Learned Senior Counsel thus submitted that in this backdrop, the impugned order, in terms whereof, the present petitioner has also been held jointly and severely liable alongwith the driver to make good the 50% of the amount, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned Senior Counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2018) 8 Supreme Court Cases 799, titled Ram Chander Singh versus Rajaram and others. 12. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Executing Court and the learned Executing Court has rightly held that both the driver and owner are jointly and severely liable to make good 50% of the amount to the Insurance Company. 13. I have heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and also learned Senior Counsel for the respondent and have also carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Executing Court as well as the award passed by the learned Tribunal. 14. The thrust of the argument of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in the present case is that in the light of the fact that specific findings were returned by the learned Tribunal that the driver of the vehicle was possessing a fake licence and the owner of the vehicle was not aware of this fact as he had exercised due precaution to ascertain the validity of the said licence, 50% recovery by the Insurance Company as was ordered by the learned Tribunal could have been from the driver only and this liability even partly could not be affixed on the owner of the vehicle. 15. This Court does not concurs with the said submissions of the learned Senior Counsel. It has to be appreciated that the issue of fake licence has got nothing to do with the issue of a claimant succeeding in a claim petition for the purpose of obtaining an award in its favour. 16. 15. This Court does not concurs with the said submissions of the learned Senior Counsel. It has to be appreciated that the issue of fake licence has got nothing to do with the issue of a claimant succeeding in a claim petition for the purpose of obtaining an award in its favour. 16. Whenever, a claimant approaches a Tribunal under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, in case, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the accident is a result of rash and negligent act of the driver, then, the claimant has to be compensated. Obviously, in these circumstances, because, it is a claim petition filed under the Motor Vehicles Act, the onus to indemnify the claimant is upon the owner of the vehicle, on whose instance or under whose employment the vehicle is being driven by the driver. However, if the owner of the vehicle has got the vehicle insured with Insurance Company, then, obviously, the owner of the vehicle has to be indemnified by the Insurance Company, because, the premium is paid by the owner of the vehicle to the Insurance Company to cover these kind of risks. 17. Many a times this question has arisen before the Courts that because there is condition in the Insurance Policy that the Insurance Company shall not be indemnify the owner of the vehicle if there is any breach of the terms of the policy, can the Insurance Company take benefit of the fact that the driver of the vehicle was not possessing a valid driving licence or was having a fake licence. 18. This issue has been put to rest by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by holding that in case due diligence has been exercised by the owner of the vehicle while engaging the driver to ascertain the validity of the driving licence, then, it is the Insurance Company which has to indemnify the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company cannot take the plea of fake licence or invalid licence to evade its liability. 19. Therefore, as far as the issue of fake licence is concerned, it is limited to this point only as to whether indemnification of the award has to be done by the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company. 19. Therefore, as far as the issue of fake licence is concerned, it is limited to this point only as to whether indemnification of the award has to be done by the owner of the vehicle or the Insurance Company. It has got nothing to do with the issue as to whether the indemnification has to be done by the driver of the vehicle or the owner of the vehicle, because, as far as a claimant is concerned, he has to be indemnified by the owner of the vehicle or by the Insurance Company. 20. Now, in this backdrop, if one peruses the award that has been passed by the learned Tribunal, in this case the learned Tribunal held that though the driver was possessing a fake licence, however, owner of the vehicle exercised due diligence to ascertain the validity thereof. The Tribunal passed the award by observing and holding that the petition was allowed with cost “against the respondents” and that as respondent No.1 Surinder Singh, Driver, was driving the vehicle on the strength of a fake driving licence, so Respondent No.3, Insurance Company, was at liberty to recover 50% of the amount, out of the total amount. In fact, this Court is of the considered view that when in the first line of Para-29, the learned Tribunal returned the findings that the petition succeeds and is allowed with costs against the respondents; it obviously, included the owner of the vehicle. Thereafter, when the Insurance Company was given liberty to recover 50% of the amount, it obviously, included the owner of the vehicle, because, recovery thereof could not have been fastened upon the driver, in law. However, because, the driver has not agitated this issue, this Court is refraining from making any further observation in this regard. In this backdrop, if one peruses the order passed by the learned Executing Court, it inter alia, held that recovery of 50% is to be made good to the Insurance Company by the driver as well as the owner of the vehicle. The findings returned by the learned Executing Court to the effect that owner of the vehicle was liable to indemnify the Insurance Company are correct findings and they do not call for any interference. The findings returned by the learned Executing Court to the effect that owner of the vehicle was liable to indemnify the Insurance Company are correct findings and they do not call for any interference. This Court is also of the considered view that as learned Tribunal after returning the findings that the owner of the vehicle had exercised due diligence in ascertaining the validity of the licence of the driver fastened only 50% of the liability on the Insurance Company, the present petitioner would have been well advised to have had assailed said award passed by the Tribunal which admittedly has not been done. 21. As far as the judgment referred to by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in Ram Chander Singh versus Rajaram and others (supra) is concerned, the same deals with the preposition that if the owner was aware of the fact that the licence was fake and he still permitted the driver to drive the vehicle, then, the insurer’s liability would stand absolved, however, the mere fact that driving licence is fake, per se, would not absolve the insurer. 22. In the peculiar facts of this case, this judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, with respect, has no applicability, because, here this Court is not adjudicating on this issue as to what would be the effect of the driver having a fake licence, because, that issue already stands decided by the learned Tribunal. 23. Therefore, in light of the observations made hereinabove as this Court finds no infirmity in the impugned order and no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. 24. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.