Judgment Syed Md.Mahfooz Alam, J. 1. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the order dated 30th March, 1998 passed in Claim Case No. 29/7 of 1995/97 by 3rd Additional District Judge-cum-Claims Tribunal, Motihari whereby he has been pleased to allow the application of respondent Jokhan Sharma and others filed under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicle Act and directed the appellant i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited to pay a total compensation of Rs. 2,80,000.00 to applicant no. 3, namely, Rambha Devi, widow of Dinesh Sharma after deducting Rs. 50,000.00 already paid towards ad interim compensation. The Tribunal further directed the appellant to pay remaining Rs. 2,30,000.00 with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the oraer within a period of three months. 2. The brief facts of the case which gave rise to filing of the claim application are as follows: On 31.5.1995 the husband of claimant, namely, Dinesh Sharma was travelling in a mini-bus bearing registration no. BR05 P-4151. The driver of the bus was driving the vehicle in question very rashly and negligently and when the said bus reached near village Depau the driver lost control of steering of the bus as a result of which the said mini-bus overturned and one person was crushed under the body of the mini-bus whereas several other persons sustained grievous as well as simple injuries. The husband of the claimant Rambha Devi also sustained grievous injury. He was removed to the Hospital where he succumbed to his injuries. After the accident, the driver and Khalasi fled away. However, the police was informed and on arrival of the police, one of the injured, namely, Aziz Mian gave his fardbeyan on the basis of which Kotwa RS. Case No, 21 of 1995 under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code was instituted in which the police submitted charge-sheet against the driver of the said vehicle, namely Bhola Sah. It has been stated that the deceased was a businessman and his monthly income was at Rs. 2,600.00 and at the time of accident, he was a young man aged about only 25 years old and due to his untimely death caused by use of the motor vehicle, his family members, who are claimants in this case, suffered a loss of Rs. 4,20,000. 3. 2,600.00 and at the time of accident, he was a young man aged about only 25 years old and due to his untimely death caused by use of the motor vehicle, his family members, who are claimants in this case, suffered a loss of Rs. 4,20,000. 3. On filing of the claim application, notices were issued to the driver and owner of the vehicle but the driver and owner did not appear in the case. However, the insurer i.e. New India Assurance Company Limited appeared in the case and contested the claim. Before this Court also New India Assurance Company is the appellant. 4. During the that the claimant addaced orai as well as documentary evidence but the insurance Company did not adduce any evidence. It appears tnat on the oasis of the orai as well as documentary evidence the Claim Tribunal allowed the claim application. 5. Tne main contention of tne learned Advocate of the appellant is that the driver as well as tne owner of the vehicle in question nave violated the terms and conditions of the policy as at the relevant time the driver had no valid licence and that the vehicle in question was overloaded and so, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liabie to satisfy the claim. 6. As per the materials available on record it has been proved beyond doubt that on 31.5.1995, deceased Dinesh Sharma died in a motor vehicle accident which resulted due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini-bus bearing Registration No. BR05 P-4151. It also stands proved that at the time of accident, tne deceased was aged about 25 years old and he was a businessman whose monthly income was Rs. 2,500/-. It is also admitted that the vehicle in question was insured under the appellant-Company at the relevant time. 7. It also stands proved that at the time of accident, tne deceased was aged about 25 years old and he was a businessman whose monthly income was Rs. 2,500/-. It is also admitted that the vehicle in question was insured under the appellant-Company at the relevant time. 7. The contention of Sri R.K.P. Sinha, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-New India Assurance Company is that he has no grievance against the finding of Tribunal with regard to the quantum of compensation fixed in this case but the judgment of the Tribunal fixing liability to pay the entire compensation on the appellant-Insurance Company is not in accordance with law in view of the fact that the evidence has come on record that the driver of the mini-bus was carrying passenger beyond the capacity of the bus and that the driver had no valid licence. The argument of the learned Advocate of the appellant-Insurance Company was that since the owner and the driver of the mini-bus have violated the terms and conditions of the policy, as such the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. His submission is that the Tribunal should have ordered the owner of the mini-bus to pay the entire compensation. 8. From perusal of the lower courts record it appears that the witnesses have admitted this fact that at the time of accident, the vehicle in question was overloaded and some passengers were travelling even sitting on the roof of the minibus. This goes to show that admittedly, the vehicle was carrying passengers more than its capacity which may be termed as violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The lower courts record further shows that the driving licence of the driver was not brought on record and, therefore, the presumption is in favour of the Insurance Company that the driver had no valid licence but I am of the view that only on the abovementioned two grounds, it cannot be held that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the claim. I am of the view that violation of the terms and conditions of the policy is a matter between the owner and the insurer and the interest of the third party cannot be affected due to non-observance of the terms and conditions of the policy by the driver of any vehicle. I am of the view that violation of the terms and conditions of the policy is a matter between the owner and the insurer and the interest of the third party cannot be affected due to non-observance of the terms and conditions of the policy by the driver of any vehicle. The compensation has been claimed for the death of third party and, therefore, I am of the view that the Insurance Company is morally and legally bound to pay the entire compensation alongwith interest and then if the Company is satisfied that there is clear cut violation of the terms and conditions of the policy, the Insurance Company may file a petition before the Executing Court i.e. Tribunal to recover the said amount from the owner of the mini-bus. 9. In the circumstances mentioned above, I do not find any merit in this appeal and as such, the same is hereby dismissed with observation that firstly the Insurance Company must indemnify the entire compensation with interest, as ordered by the Tribunal and then take necessary steps before the Executing Court for recovery of the said amount from the owner of the bus, if the Company is satisfied that the terms of the policy has/have been violated by the owner as well as the driver of the mini-bus. It is further observed that for recovery of the amount, there will be no necessity to file separate money suit. 10. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed with above observation and the judgment and award of the Tribunal are confirmed. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount after deducting the amount paid by the Company towards ad interim compensation or by way of statutory amount deposited in Court.