Judgment 1. In the accident, which occurred on 09.12.2009, husband of the 1st respondent died. A case in Crime No.1255 of 2009, originally registered under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, has been altered into Section 304(A) of IPC. Though the wife and sons of the deceased claimed that prior to death, by engaging himself as a selling of sweets, the deceased earned Rs.10,000/- per month, in the absence of any proof, by determining the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.4,500/-, the Claims Tribunal has deducted 1/3 towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased and after applying 5' multiplier, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and Others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 , the Claims Tribunal computed the loss of contribution to the family as Rs.1,80,000/-. 2. According to the respondents, the deceased was treated in Vinayaka Mission Hospital on 09.12.2009 and thereafter, in Government hospitals. To prove that they have incurred medical expenses, the respondents/claimants have marked Ex.P.9-Medical Bills and Ex.P.10-Cash bill. Based on the above, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,252/-for medical expenses and Rs.5,250/- for transportation. The Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs.10,000/- for loss of consortium, Rs.5,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.5,000/-towards funeral expenses. Altogether, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,15,502/-as compensation, with interest @7.5% from the date of claim, till the date of realisation. 3. On the aspect of liability, the Claims Tribunal having found that the rider of the offending vehicle, Bajaj boxer, bearing Registration No.TN-30-6500, insured with United India Insurance Company Limited, the appellant herein, did not possess a valid and effective driving license, at the time of accident, and placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Saravanan reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 103 (DB), directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. Though the quantum of compensation, as well as the liability fixed on the Insurance Company, to pay compensation, to the respondents/claimants and thereafter, to recover from the owner of the offending vehicle, are challenged, this Court is not inclined to accept the same. 4. Though the quantum of compensation, as well as the liability fixed on the Insurance Company, to pay compensation, to the respondents/claimants and thereafter, to recover from the owner of the offending vehicle, are challenged, this Court is not inclined to accept the same. 4. The question as to whether, it is open to the insurer to seek for total exoneration for payment of compensation to a third party victim or whether it has only a right of recovery, Section 149 (4) and (5) of the Motor Vehicle's Act, has been extensively considered in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Vs. Annakkili, reported in 2012 (1) TN MAC 226, wherein this Court following the principles of law laid down by the Apex Court and the Division bench judgments that payment of compensation to a third party victim or legal representatives of the deceased, as the case may be, being statutory and considering the interpretation given by the Supreme Court to Sections 147, 149 (4) and (5) vis-a-vis the defences open to the Insurance Company under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act and by holding that the very introduction of the words, "pay compensation to the third party and recover the same from the insured" in Section 149(4) and (5) of the Act, would reflect the divine intention of the legislature to protect the interest of the third parties, vis-a-vis inter-se disputes between the insured and insurer, held that the insurer cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation to a third party, but such avoidance can be made only, if willful breach of terms and conditions of the policy by the insured, by consciously and recklessly allowing the driver, who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, to drive the vehicle and even if such breach is proved, payment of compensation to the third party victim cannot, at any stretch of imagination, be avoided by the Company and that the only remedy open to the insurer in law is to pay the compensation to the third party victims and recover from the insured. In view of the above, the insurer cannot be totally exonerated from payment of compensation to third party, but it can avoid its liability only to the insured. 5. In a recent decision in S.Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. In view of the above, the insurer cannot be totally exonerated from payment of compensation to third party, but it can avoid its liability only to the insured. 5. In a recent decision in S.Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2013 (7) SCC 62 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar contention and after considering a catena of decisions, at Paragraph 17, held as follows: “Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy.” 6. As the owner of the vehicle, against whom, right of recovery has been granted, has not preferred any appeal, in the light of the decisions made in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., v. Annakkili and others reported in 2012 (1) TNMAC 227 and S.Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in 2013 (7) SCC 62 , this Court is of the view that there is no manifest illegality in fastening liability on the appellant-Insurance Company to pay compensation to the respondent/claimant, and then to recover the same, from the owner of the vehicle. 7. The attitude of the insurance companies, questioning the jurisdiction of the claims tribunals in passing an order of “pay and recover” which implicitly follow the decisions of High Courts and Apex Court, cannot be appreciated. Judicial time is being wasted by simply filing an appeal for getting a stamp of approval from this Court. When decisions made on principles of law or ratio decidendi is binding on all parities, including the High Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and invariably, when the insurance companies are impleaded as contesting respondents, whenever private vehicles are involved, appeals are being filed on the very same ground. 8. The quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents/claimants cannot be said to be grossly excessive, warranting interference. 8. The quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents/claimants cannot be said to be grossly excessive, warranting interference. Hence, the directions of the Claims Tribunal to pay compensation of Rs.2,15,502/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation, to the respondents/claimants and then, to recover the same from the insurer and the quantum of compensation, are sustained. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. 9. Consequent to the dismissal of the appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount, with proportionate accrued interest and costs, less the statutory deposit, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.679 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Salem, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not deposited earlier and recover the same from the insurer, as directed by the Claims Tribunal. On such deposit being made, the respondents/claimants are permitted to withdraw their share in the award, as apportioned by the tribunal, by making necessary applications before the Tribunal.