Judgment : 1. Finding that the driver of the offending vehicle Mahindra Van, bearing Registration No.TN-28U-5989, insured with National Insurance Company Limited, Bhavani, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, the Claims Tribunal, vide Judgment and Decree dated 18.10.2011, has directed M/s. National Insurance Company Limited, Erode District, to pay compensation of Rs.6,90,000/- with interest @7.5% per annum, from the date of claim, till the date of realisation, to the legal representatives of the deceased and thereafter, to recover from Mr. Arulraj, S/o. Panneerselvam, 7th respondent in this appeal. 2. Challenge in this appeal is fastening liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation and thereafter, to recover from the 7th respondent herein. Except the above, no other submission has been made. 3. The only challenge in this appeal, is to the finding, fixing liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation, on the ground that the driver of the vehicle, bearing Registration No.TN-28U-5989, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, to drive the vehicle and therefore, the Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated from payment of compensation to a third party victim. The said challenge is no longer res integra in view of the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd., v. S. Saravanan reported in 2009 (2) TNMAC 103 (DB), United India Insurance Company Limited, Salem, Vs. V. Vijayakumar, represented by his mother Kalamani and three others, reported in 2010 (2) TN MAC 388 (DB) and Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Ltd., Pune, Vs. Manimozhi and four others, reported in 2010 (2) TN MAC 542 (DB). 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. 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 Supreme Court, while dealing with the similar contentions 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 respondents/claimants and then to recover the same, from the owner of the vehicle. 7. It is represented by Mr. Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interests and costs, has already been deposited to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.369 of 2008 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Judge), Sankari. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Consequent to the dismissal of this appeal, all the major respondents are permitted to withdraw their share in the award amount, as apportioned by the Claims Tribunal, by making necessary applications. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. Consequent to the dismissal of this appeal, all the major respondents are permitted to withdraw their share in the award amount, as apportioned by the Claims Tribunal, by making necessary applications. The share of the minors/3 and 4 respondents shall be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Banks, in fixed deposit under the reinvestment scheme, proximate to the place of the residence of the claimants, initially for a period of three years. The interest accruing on the share of the minors/ 3 and 4 respondents shall be paid to the mother of the minors, once in three months, till they attain majority.