JUDGMENT Honble Amitava Lala. J.— This appeal has been preferred by the owner of the vehicle, the appellant herein, against the judgment and order of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Basti dated 22nd January, 2008, whereunder an award of Rs. 1,50,000/- along with interest has been granted in favour of the claimants. Under the award the insurance company has been directed to pay the amount of compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 2. By preferring this appeal the owner has contended before this Court that he is aggrieved by the order of recovery. He cited a Single Bench judgment before this Court reported in 2007 (2) JCLR 801 (Uttarakhand) United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through Divisional Manager, Haldwani, Nainital v. Smt. Prem Bisht and another, by saying that it has a persuasive value. He referred to Paragraphs-13 and 14 of such judgement to establish the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard in 2003 (2) TAC 1 (SC), United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru and others; and 2004 (1) TAC 321, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh. We have gone through such paragraphs and found that the Supreme Court held otherwise. So far as the earlier judgment is concerned, the Supreme Court held “More importantly, even in such a case the Insurance Company would remain liable to the innocent third party, but it may be able to recover from the insured.” So far as Swaran Singh (supra) is concerned, we find that in analysing the ratio the Supreme Court held “......Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal.” The import of these two judgments is that if any condition of the insurance between any insured and the insurance company is hit by Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 regarding driving licence or otherwise, then the insurance company can pay and recover. Factually, in this case the Court held that the driver had no valid licence. The contention of the owner is that he produced a photocopy of the valid licence. Factually, in this case the Court held that the driver had no valid licence. The contention of the owner is that he produced a photocopy of the valid licence. Documents from the Regional Transport Authority were called and it appears from the statement of the witness examined on behalf of the Regional Transport Authority that no such licence was available to the driver at the relevant point of time. Therefore, we cannot pass any affirmative order in favour of the appellant-owner. Hence, the appeal cannot be admitted and is dismissed without imposing any cost. 3. Incidentally, the appellant-owner prayed that the statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- made before this Court for preferring this appeal shall be remitted back to the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as expeditiously as possible in order to adjust with the amount of compensation to be paid to the claimants, however, such prayer is allowed. 4. However, it is open for the appellant-owner to make appropriate rectification application in the proceeding before the tribunal, if so advised. In case any such application is made, immediately upon receiving the same, the tribunal concerned will issue notice upon the insurance company and other concerned and decide this issue. However, passing of this order will no way affect the right of the claimants to get the amount of compensation. ————