Judgment : M. KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J. ( 1 ) BOTH these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment, as the issue raised in these appeals is one and the same and both the appeals also arise out of the common order rendered by the Tribunal in the two claim petitions. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the claimants, Dhanase Karan and Arun Prakash, on 30. 11. 1995, at about 7 p. m. , when the claimant Arun Prakash was driving his motor cycle from south to north direction and the claimant Dhanasekaran was the pillion rider, the car bearing registration No. TN 07-D came from west to east direction with excessive speed, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motor cycle of the claimants. With the result, both the claimants sustained grievous injuries. ( 3 ) THE owner of the vehicle as well as the insurance company were the respondents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after inquiry, concluded that the vehicle involved in this case was driven in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, resulting in serious injuries on the claimants. ( 4 ) THE insurance company contested the case by examining a witness from the Regional Transport Office that the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount in view of the fact that the driver of the car was not possessing a valid licence. However, rejecting the said contention, the tribunal imposed liability on the insurance company, directing it to pay the award amount to both the claimants, by the common order. This order is the subject-matter of challenge before this court in these two appeals. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that despite the fact that the insurance company, the appellant, examined an official from the Regional transport Office to prove their defence that the driver of the vehicle did not possess the valid driving licence, the Claims tribunal held that the insurance company is liable to pay the award amount, merely because the charge-sheet has not been produced before Claims Tribunal even though the driver was charged for the offence of having driven the motor vehicle without licence. ( 6 ) IN view of a recent decision rendered by the Apex Court in New India Assurance co. ( 6 ) IN view of a recent decision rendered by the Apex Court in New India Assurance co. Ltd. v. Kamla, 2001 ACJ 843 (SC), we need not go into the question as to whether the insurance company has properly proved before the Tribunal that the driver of the car was possessing valid licence or not. The dictum laid down by the Supreme court in the said decision is as follows: “the insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid driving licence. " ( 7 ) IN the light of the above observations of the Apex Court, the finding given by the Tribunal that the appellant insurance company is liable to pay the award amount to the claimants, is perfectly justified. It is further made clear that the insurer is allowed to recover that amount from the insured person, as the materials available on record would show that the driver was not possessing driving licence. ( 8 ) WITH the above observations, both the appeals are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, C. M. P. Nos. 22807 of 2001 and 1153 of 2002 are closed. Appeals disposed of.