JUDGMENT : R.K. Patra, J. - The aforesaid seven petitions are under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India filed at the instance of the Divisional Manager. New India Assurance Company Limited. By these petitions, the petitioner seeks to assail the validity of the common order dated 18.7.200 passed by the First Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Puri Pursuant to the compromise reached by the parties in the Lok Adalat held on 3 1.1998. As in all the seven cases, common questions were involved, they were taken up together for hearing. This order will govern all the cases. 2. The following is the detailed chart showing the amount reached on compromise in the Lok Adalat: SI. No. OJC Number Arising out of Amount 1. (OJC No. 3461/2001) MACT MC No. 64/95 Rs. 25.000/-for injury. 2. (OJC No. 3462/2001) MACT MC No. 96/95 Rs. 25.000/-for injury. 3. (OJC No. 3463/2001) MACT MC No. 79/95 Rs. 30.000/-for injury. 4. (OJC No. 3464/2001) MACT MC No. 62/95 Rs. 25.000/-for injury. 5. (OJC No. 3465/2001) MACT MC No. 78/95 Rs. 30.000/-tor injury. 6. (OJC No. 3466/2001) MACT MC No. 98/95 Rs. 25,000/-for injury. 7. (OJC No. 3467/2001) MACT MC No. 63/95 Rs. 30.000/-for in|ury 3. The petitioners in these writ petitions contend that the insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation because the driver of the offending vehicle and no valid licence at the time of the accident. 4. Each of the motor accident claim cases mentioned above was denied in the Lok Adalat held on 3.1.1996 on compromise subject to the condition that the claimants would produce the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. It may be noted that the amount awarded was for the injuries sustained by the claimants. Shri Sarangi. learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co., Shimla Vs. Kamla and Others etc. etc., contended that there was clear breach of the insurance policy conditions because the vehicle was being driven by the driver without a valid driving licence and, as such, the insurer could not be made liable to pay the compensation. Compensation if any has to be paid by the owner of the offending vehicle. Kamla and Others etc. etc., contended that there was clear breach of the insurance policy conditions because the vehicle was being driven by the driver without a valid driving licence and, as such, the insurer could not be made liable to pay the compensation. Compensation if any has to be paid by the owner of the offending vehicle. It is his submission that the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal should have accepted the petitioner's application to recall the order dated 3.1.1998 and should not have rejected the same mechanically. Shri Parija appearing for the owner of the vehicle referred to the aforesaid case of the Supreme Court and contended that the insurer has to first pay the compensation to the claimants and later recover the same from the owner. 5. It is true that in the Lok Adalat amount was determined on compromise subject to the Conditions that the claimants would produce valid driving licence. The petitioner now alleges that the driving licence could not be verified because the claimants did not furnish necessary particulars and with the scanty information made available, the driving licence produced by the claimants later appeared to be a fake one. 6. In the case of Kamala (supra), the Supreme Court has held that the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation in respect of motor accident occurred when the vehicle was driven by a person holding a fake licence. Having held so, it was further observed that the insurance company can recover from the insured vehicle owner the amount paid to a third party. 7. We may note that the claimants cannot be forced to supply the particulars of driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle. Law does not cast any duty on them to produce the valid driving licence. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court, while confirming the impugned order of the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, we hold that the petitioner is free to proceed for realisation of the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 8. We may note that the Supreme Court in the case of Kamla (supra) remitted the matter to the Tribunal to decide the question whether the insurance company was entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle on account of the vehicle being driven by a person who had no valid licence. 8. We may note that the Supreme Court in the case of Kamla (supra) remitted the matter to the Tribunal to decide the question whether the insurance company was entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle on account of the vehicle being driven by a person who had no valid licence. The present case, however, arise out of Lok Adalat compromise and that is the reason why we are not remitting the cases to the Tribunal and leave it to the petitioner to work out its remedy against the owner in a civil Court. 9. With aforesaid observations, die writ petitioner are dismissed. The petitioner is directed to pay the awarded amount to the claimants as per the compromise. The amount, as stated by Shri Sarangi is lying in deposit in the Central Bank of India. Steps may be taken to disburse the compensation amount to the claimants forthwith. Pradip Mohanty, J. 10. I agree.