Judgment :- 1. The appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the liability to pay compensation on the ground that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a licence at all to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. 2. The claimant filed a petition before the tribunal claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-as compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him. As against the claim made, the tribunal has passed an award for a sum of Rs.31,500/-. 3. The specific defence taken by the insurance company is that the driver did not have a license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. The learned counsel for the insurance company pointed out that the admission made by the father of the petitioner / first respondent herein, that his son, who was the driver, did not have a valid driving license and also that the driver paid fine for non-possession of license before the criminal court. But, the copy of the criminal Court Judgment is not available for perusal. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel representing the petitioner that he was possessing a license, but, as it was missed / misplaced , he was not in a position to produce the license. This contention cannot be accepted, because, even if the license is missed or misplaced, it may not be very difficult to obtain a copy of the license and to produce it. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company that it is an after thought and only in order to cover-up the admission made by the father that there was no license, the theory of misplcement has been invented has to be accepted. Therefore, this Court hold that the driver was not having a license to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. 5. The next question is, in the absence of license, what is the liability of the insurance company. 6. The learned counsel for the claimant relied upon the decision reported in (2011) 6 SCC 425 . Jawahar Singh vs. Bala Jain & Ors and contended that it is a case where the insurance company can be directed to pay the compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner. The relevant observation reads as follows;- “The responsibility in causing the accident was, therefore, found to be solely that of Jatin. Jawahar Singh vs. Bala Jain & Ors and contended that it is a case where the insurance company can be directed to pay the compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner. The relevant observation reads as follows;- “The responsibility in causing the accident was, therefore, found to be solely that of Jatin. However, since Jatin was a minor and it was the responsibility of the Petitioner to ensure that his motorcycle was not misused and that too by a minor who had no licence to drive the same, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal quite rightly saddled the liability for payment of compensation on the Petitioner and, accordingly, directed the Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount to the awardees and, thereafter, to recover the same from the Petitioner. The said question has been duly considered by the Tribunal and was correctly decided. The High Court rightly chose not to interfere with the same.” 7. As per this decision as the insurance company is not liable in a case where the vehicle is not driven by a driver with no driving license the insurance company after payment of compensation is entitled to recover the same from the owner. 8. The learned counsel for the insurance company represented that it is not a fit case to exercise the discretion to order “ pay and recover”, because the amount is meagre i.e., Rs.31,500/- and that it may not be difficult for the injured to get it directly from the owner of the vehicle. 9. It is common knowledge that the real difficulty for a litigant arises only after obtaining the decree and the procedure for execution is so elaborate elastic and expansive that it is very difficult for any claimant whomsoever to realise the fruits of the decree. Therefore, this Court is not in favour of exercising the discretion of directing the claimant to recover it directly from the owner. Hence, the insurance company will pay the compensation with liberty to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. 10. To this extent the appeal is partly allowed directing the insurance company to pay the amount with liberty to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.