JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by the Insurance Company is directed against the order of the Tribunal dated 28.5.2003 passed in claim petition No.121/2000. 2. The brief facts as merging on the face of record are that while Pramila was going to her farm house with her mother and while crossing the road met with an accident by a Jeep bearing No. RJ-23G 0658 and it is the claim of the claimants that the vehicle was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by driver Ladu Ram. On account of the said accident, the deceased was dragged more than 30-35 yards. She sustained serious injuries and succumbed to death on the spot. An FIR was lodged against driver Ladu Ram. Charge-sheet was submitted in the appropriate court against the driver. On account of the said death, a claim petition was filed as aforesaid and after analysing the facts and material on record, the Tribunal allowed the claim of the claimants partly and awarded an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- in total. 3. Mr. S.R. Joshi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the driver was not having a valid licence to drive a jeep, which is a commercial vehicle, in the instant case because the jeep was being used as a commercial vehicle for the purpose of loading and unloading. A driver possessed a licence to drive light motor vehicle but not a commercial vehicle, as in the instant case though he fairly admits that jeep falls within the definition of light motor vehicle, but since the same was being used for commercial purposes, therefore, it's licence had to be separatly taken to drive it for commercial purposes and since he did not possess a valid licence, therefore, there was a breach of condition of the policy. In this regard the officer also appeared before the Tribunal and led evidence in this regard. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that as per Section 14(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act while a licence to drive light motor vehicle is for a period of 20 years, check and balances have been taken in case licence is for commercial purposes and it is only for 3 years, so that one person, who is driving commercial vehicle undergoes tests under the Motor Vehicles Act every 3 years. He submits that when it is an admitted position that he was not having a valid licence, therefore, the Tribunal is unjustified to direct the appellant Company to pay the amount as awarded by it, initially to the claimants and then to recover the same from the owner/driver. Learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai & Ors., reported in 2006 ACJ 1336 and also judgment of this Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhema & Ors., reported in 2009 ACJ 2494 . He submitted that ultimately the direction ought to have given not to pay the balance amount to the claimants and even the amount which has already been paid be directed to be recovered from the owner/driver. 4. Per contra, Mr. S.K. Singodiya learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 3 -owner and driver submitted that there is already a direction by the Tribunal to recover the said amount from the driver or owner, therefore, no further direction is required to be given in this regard. He also submitted that even otherwise all along even in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court directed that the amount can be recovered from the owner in the same manner as was directed in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. v. Meena Variyal reported in (2007) 5 SCC 428 . He also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Geeta Bhat & Ors. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 426 , wherein even the Apex Court was considering a case wherein it was proved that licence was fake and despite that ultimately the Apex Court held that the amount be directed to be paid by the Insurance Co. to the claimants with liberty to recover the same from the owner and the driver of the vehicle in accordance with law. 5. Mr. P.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that for no fault of the claimants despite the accident having taken place in the year 1999 and more than 14 years have been passed, the claimants have recovered 50% amount only when there was no fault and there is fight between the Insurance Co. and owner/driver. 6. 5. Mr. P.L. Sharma, learned counsel for the claimants submitted that for no fault of the claimants despite the accident having taken place in the year 1999 and more than 14 years have been passed, the claimants have recovered 50% amount only when there was no fault and there is fight between the Insurance Co. and owner/driver. 6. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. 7. In my view, the Tribunal after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case has rightly held that there was breach of condition of the insurance policy and, therefore, even the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the amount can be recovered from the owner/driver in accordance with law by the Insurance Company and in my view when the said direction is already available with the appellant then no further direction is required to be given in this regard. Even the Apex Court in both the judgments referred to herein above in the case of National Insurance Co. v. Kusum Rai (supra) has observed that the amount can always be recovered from the owner/driver and when in such a case the Hon'ble Apex Court has already observed then in my view it would be adding further to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 8. Be that as it may, the counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted this point, in my view the Insurance Co. i.e. appellant is free to initiate proceedings in accordance with law to recover the said amount as directed by the Tribunal in the said award from the owner/driver as aforesaid. 9. Without touching into merits of the case, the order of the Tribunal appears to be just and proper and no interference is called for by this Court. 10. With the above observation, it is directed that the Insurance Co. is free to recover the said amount in accordance with law from the owner/driver. I also direct the trial court to allow the balance amount to be paid to the claimants, which is lying with it as aforesaid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The appeal stands disposed of.Appeal disposed of. *******