Judgment :- 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the National Insurance Company Limited, Kishnagiri against the Judgement and Decree dated 2.2.2006 made in MCOP.No.714/2004 by the learned Additional District Judge (MACT) Dharmapuri, whereby the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,37,000/-as total compensation with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization to the claimants, who are the parents of the deceased Ilankadir, who died in the motor accident that occurred on 18.4.2004. 2. The short facts are that on 18.4.2004 at about 6.15 p.m. while the deceased Ilankadir, a qualified driver employed in Selvi Travels, Pappireddipatti, was proceeding in his two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TAA-1893 from Pappireddipatti bus stand, near Raja Hotel on Pappireddipatti-Bommidi Road, a two wheeler Hero Honda Splendor bearing Reg.No.TN-29-M-5078 coming in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner had hit against the deceased, due to which, the claimant succumbed to the head injuries on the same day in the Palaniyandavar Mudaliar Hospital, Ammapettai, Salem. The claimants claimed a compensation of Rs.12,15,000/-as total compensation and restricted to Rs.7,00,000/- in the claim petition. The Tribunal, after analysing the evidence on record, held that accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the rider of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.3,37,000/-as total compensation with interest at 7.5 per cent p.a. from the date of the claim petition till the date of realization, exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability, however directed the Insurance Company to pay the award amount to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. As against the same, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 3. As regards the negligence aspect, the Tribunal has held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which is not assailed by the Appellant Insurance Company in this appeal and hence, the said finding of the Tribunal with regard to the negligence aspect fixing the same on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle is liable to be confirmed and accordingly, it is confirmed. 4. 4. The Appellant Insurance Company contended in its counter filed before the Tribunal that though the offending vehicle was insured with it at the material time, the driver of offending vehicle had no valid driving licence and therefore, it is not liable to pay compensation. 5. The burden lies on the Insurance Company to establish that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence. To discharge the said burden, the Insurance Company had examined its Administrative Assistant, who stated in his evidence that one Sanakar, who had driven the vehicle at the time of the accident, had no driving licence. It is further stated by him that the 3rd Respondent, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, was aware of the said fact and has admitted the same in the claim form Ex.R1 submitted by him. Therefore, it is contended that the 3rd Respondent, owner of the vehicle being aware of the fact that the driver had no valid driving licence, had permitted him to drive the vehicle, which is in violation of the stipulations of the Insurance Policy Ex.A3. Therefore, the Appellant would contend that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. 6. Mr.D.Bhaskaran, the learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass an order to pay and recover against the Insurer even in a case of third party risk having been covered by the Insurer, if it was established that due to a fundamental breach of the essential conditions of the Policy, that is, the offending vehicle having been driven by a person not possessing a valid and effective driving licence, the Insurer could avoid liability under Section 149 (2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. On the other hand, Mr.M.Selvam, the learned counsel for the Respondents 1 and 2/claimants placed reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 2011-1-TNMAC-641-SC (Jawahar Singh Vs. Bala Jain and others) and the decision of the Allahabad High Court reported in 2011-2-TNMAC-724-DB-All (New India Assurance Co. Limited Vs. Babita and others) and contended that in those cases, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to 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 was upheld. Limited Vs. Babita and others) and contended that in those cases, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to 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 was upheld. He would submit that there is no dispute in the present case that the claimants are the third parties. Therefore, he would contend that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to order Insurer which was under the statutory liability to cover the risk of the claimants being third party to first pay and thereafter recover from the owner the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, despite recording a finding that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess any driving licence. 8. The Tribunal has found that on a perusal of Ex.R1 claim form submitted by the owner of the vehicle, it has been admitted that the driver had no valid driving licence. Therefore, it is clear that the policy condition has been violated by the owner of the offending vehicle, as he has permitted the driver, who had no valid driving licence to drive the vehicle. The Tribunal in the fact situation of the present case had considered whether it could be necessary to pass an order of pay and recover against the Insurance Company and directed the Insurer to pay the compensation to the third party claimants and recover it from the owner of the vehicle. It is pertinent to point that the owner of the vehicle remained exparte before the Tribunal and even in this appeal, summons could not be served on the owner of the vehicle as he was evasive. 9. In similar circumstances, the Honourable Supreme Court has held in Oriental Insurance Co. Limited Vs. Nanjapppan (2004-ACJ-721-SC) in paragraph 8 as under:- "8.) Therefore, while setting aside the judgement of the High Court we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaur's case, 2004-ACJ-428-SC that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Claims Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised to the Respondents/claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate proceedings before the concerned executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer." 10. In Jawahar Singh Vs. Bala Jain and others (2011-1-TNMAC-641-SC), the Honourable Supreme Court dealt with a situation where the vehicle was allowed to be driven by a minor by the owner of the vehicle and directed the Insurance Company to pay the award to the claimants and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Similarly, in New India Assurance Co. Limited Vs. Babita and others (2011-2-TNMAC-724-DB-All) it is held that the directions given by the Tribunal requiring the Insurer to make deposit of award amount and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle was held to be in accordance with law and suffered from no infirmity. 11. In the present case, the owner of the offending vehicle having remained exparte before the Tribunal, inference that could thus safely be drawn is that the owner without exercising reasonable care negligently permitted the offending vehicle to be driven by the driver who did not possess any driving licence. In this view of the matter, the fundamental breach of the conditions of the policy of insurance is established and it can safely be inferred that by allowing the motorcycle that is the offending vehicle to be driven by a person, who did not possess any driving licence, the 3rd Respondent, the owner had committed such a fundamental breach of the conditions of the policy of insurance which had contributed to the accident. Therefore, the Tribunal was right in giving such a direction directing the Insurance Company to pay the award amount to the claimants and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 12. In the present case, the Tribunal has held that the driver, who actually drove the vehicle at the time of the accident, had no valid and effective driving licence and thus, exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability. The Appellants/claimants are the parents of the deceased. It is seen that the claimants are in a state of penury and compensation will not be immediately recoverable from the owner. The Appellants/claimants are the parents of the deceased. It is seen that the claimants are in a state of penury and compensation will not be immediately recoverable from the owner. In a fact situation, like the present case, the Honourable Supreme Court, even after exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability to pay compensation, has directed the Insurance Company to pay and recover. 13. In view of the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court and also in view of the fact that the owner of the offending vehicle was not contesting the claim petition and had remained exparte, to meet the ends of justice, it is justified to pass an order directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation awarded and recover it from the owner. 14. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. It is stated that the Appellant Insurance Company has already deposited the entire quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants with interest. The claimants are permitted to withdraw the entire award amount with interest. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit and it may initiate a proceedings before the concerned executing court. No costs. Consequently, the connected MP is closed.