JUDGMENT 1. This is an insurer's appeal. 2. On 24.2.2006, John, a minor boy sustained injury. It was caused by a mini door auto. The Tribunal granted him Rs.1,98,000/-, as compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that actually the owner of the offending vehicle Nagaraj/second respondent drove the vehicle, since he did not possess a driving licence, one Rosario Sahayaraj, has been wrongly stated in the petition, as driver of the vehicle. So, the claimant shall be non-suited. 4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the first respondent would contend that in the M.V.I. Report, since Rosario Sahayaraj's name appeared, the same has been mentioned in the petition. Later, on verification, it was found that the second respondent has drove the vehicle. Even if Nagaraj is held to be not holding a driving licence, since the injured boy is a third party and the policy was also in force, he should not be allowed to suffer, the Company can pay the amount to the boy and recover it from Nagaraj. In this respect, the learned counsel would cite JAWAHAR SINGH Vs. BALA JAIN & OTHER, 2011 (1) TN MAC 641 (SC). 5. I have considered the rival submissions, perused the materials on record, impugned award of the Tribunal and the decision cited. 6. On 24.2.2006, it is a fact that the first respondent was dashed by a mini door auto. It is a fact that he sustained injury. The only difference is the driver of the vehicle is not Rosario Sahayaraj, but, Nagaraj. That would be seen by the FIR, Charge-sheet and the Criminal Court Judgment. 7. Now, the question is instead of Nagaraj one Rosario Sahayaraj having been mentioned in the petition, whether the Insurance Company can avoid its liability. Of course, instead of Nagaraj, Rosario Sahayaraj's name has been mentioned in the petition. It is a mistake. 8. Section 149 M.V. Act will protect the claimant. The claimant is a third party. On the date of accident, insurance coverage was there and the policy was in force. Nagaraj, the culprit drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against John. Of course, he was an unlicenced person. For that, there is no justification in punishing John, the injured. 9. The claimant is a third party. On the date of accident, insurance coverage was there and the policy was in force. Nagaraj, the culprit drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against John. Of course, he was an unlicenced person. For that, there is no justification in punishing John, the injured. 9. In JAWAHAR SINGH (supra), a minor, who drove the vehicle was not holding a driving licence, the Hon'ble Apex Court taking note of the fact that the policy was in force and the road accident victims are third parties, directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and recover it from the owner of the vehicle. Similarly, in our case also, the Company will pay the amount first to the first respondent and recover it from Nagaraj/second respondent. 10. In the result, the award of the Tribunal is modified. The appellant is entitled to recover the entire amount from the second respondent. For this purpose, the appellant need not file a separate suit. It can file an execution petition before proper Court. The entire amount shall be kept in the bank deposit upto 18 years of first respondent. However, accrued interest thereon shall continuously be paid to the first respondent's guardian. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.