JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 28th June, 2003 passed by III MACT, District-Morena in claim case No. 8/2002 whereby claim case filed by the Appellant was allowed and compensation was awarded to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- and Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company was exonerated as the driving license was found forged, the present appeal has been filed. 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that amount awarded by learned Tribunal is on lower side, hence the same be enhanced. It is submitted that learned Tribunal committed error in not giving direction to the Respondent No. 3 to pay and recover. For this contention reliance is placed on a decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir 2008 A.C.J. 2161: 2008 (3) T.A.C. 20, wherein right of recovery has been given by Hon'ble Apex Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Further reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Smt. Sunita Jain v. Kunwar Singh alias Raju Vishwakarma, 2007 (2) M.P.H.T. 417 (D.B.), wherein in a case of breach of policy condition regarding holding of a valid license by the driver. Division Bench of this Court has held that Insurance Company in such a situation held would not be liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, but even to such a case the principle of pay and recover will apply to the Insurance Company. It was further held that in other words the Insurance Company has to be directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and direction has also to be given that the Insurance Company would be entitled to recover the same from the vehicle owner/insured. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the Appellant be allowed and the amount be enhanced and Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company be directed to pay the compensation and recover. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submit that no case for enhancement is made out. It is submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 submits that the amount awarded by learned Tribunal is just and proper. 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submit that no case for enhancement is made out. It is submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 3 submits that the amount awarded by learned Tribunal is just and proper. It is submitted that so far as right of recovery from Respondent No. 3 is concerned, since the license which was produced by the Respondent No. 1 was forged, therefore, no direction can be given to Respondent No. 3 to pay and recover. It is submitted that Respondent No. 3 is not liable for payment of compensation. Reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Prem Kumari v. Prahlad Dev 2008 A.C.J. 776 : 2008 (1) T.A.C. 803 (S.C.), wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in a case of fake license Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. It is submitted that the appeal filed by the Appellant be dismissed. 5. Keeping in view the aforesaid position of law as laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the opinion that no illegality has been committed by learned Tribunal in exonerating the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company and no direction can be given to the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company to pay and recover. In view of this, the appeal filed by the Appellant stands dismissed. C.C. as per rules