JUDGMENT 1. Quantum of compensation of Rs.91,000/-awarded to the respondent/claimant with interest @7.5% per annum, is challenged on the ground inter alia that the motor cyclist, bearing Registration No.TN-27D-4049, who caused the accident, did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, at the time of accident. According to the appellant, fracture in the left thumb would not result any disablement. Hence, the extent of disablement is also questioned. According to the Insurance Company, compensation awarded under the following heads requires reduction. Disability Compensation Rs.40,000/ For the injuries Rs.30,000/ Mental agony Rs. 5,000/ Pain and suffering Rs.10,000/ loss of amenities Rs. 2,000/ Transportation Rs. 2,000/ Nutrition Rs. 2,000/ Total Rs.91,000/ 2. The respondent/claimant is on record. Though the name of the owner of the offending vehicle Mr.Maria Joseph has been shown in the cause list, there is no appearance either in person or through counsel. Hence, this Court proceeds to decide the case on merits, in the absence of respondent No.2, who has not chosen to contest the issue raised in this appeal. 3. The challenge in this appeal, is to the finding, fixing liability on the Insurance Company to pay compensation, on the grounds inter alia that the rider of the Motor cycle, bearing Registration No.TN-27D-4049, 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 contention 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. Quantum of compensation awarded to the respondent/ claimant, aged about 31 years and sustained a fracture in the left thumb, would result in loss of rib, cannot be said to be grossly excessive, warranting interference. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. It is represented by the learned counsel for the appellant -Insurance Company that the entire award amount with proportionate accrued interest and costs already deposited, to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.466 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, has been withdrawn. Now, the respondent/claimant is directed to withdraw the balance amount lying in deposit, by making necessary applications.