Jitendra Chauhan, J. CM-573-74-CII-2014 Keeping in view the averments made in the applications, the same are allowed. The delay of 110 day in refiling and 9 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. FAO -210-2014 The present appeal has been filed by the owner and driver, assailing the award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur (for short 'the Tribunal'), dated 2.5.2013. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the vehicle was insured at the time of accident and the driver of the Tractor was holding a valid driving licence. Therefore, the appellants i.e. owner and the driver of the offending vehicle are not liable to pay the compensation. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the case file carefully. 3. It is not disputed that Harpal Singh- respondent No. 1 suffered injuries in a motor vehicular accident on 14.2.2011. The offending tractor was being driven by appellant No. 2. The learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,05,700/- to the claimant-respondent No. 1 and the Insurance Company was held liable to pay the compensation and then recover the same from the appellants being the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, as the driver was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident. In para No. 13 of the impugned Award, the learned Tribunal has recorded as under:-- 13. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. Admittedly, the offending vehicle in this case is a tractor-trolley, which was being driven by respondent No. 1 and was owned by respondent No. 2 at the time of the accident. No evidence has been led by them to show that respondent No. 1 was having a valid driving licence to drive the offending tractor trolley at the relevant time, whereas from the evidence of RW-1 Gurnam Kumar it stands evident that he was not having a valid driving licence to drove the tractor. Rather, he was authorised to drove only scooters and cars. Thus there is a merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Rather, he was authorised to drove only scooters and cars. Thus there is a merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the insurance company that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Where the offending vehicle is driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy then initially the burden to pay the amount of compensation is upon the insurer, but the insurer has the right to recover the same from the insured by initiating proceedings before the executing court. 4. The insurance company has been rightly given the right to pay and recover compensation amount from the appellants, in view of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others 2004 ACJ 2094. In view of the above, this Court finds no merits in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.