Judgment :- 1. On 25.02.2009, about 08.30 P.M., when Thiru.Ponraj was proceeding from the Factory where he is working to his residence by foot in Dindigul-Palladam road, a Scooter owned by the 5th respondent ridden by the 4th respondent in a rash and negligent manner, hit the pedestrian Ponraj, due to which, Ponraj died. The claimants filed MCOP.No.976 of 2009 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Court), Dindigul and the Tribunal passed a judgment and decree dated 24.09.2012 granting compensation of Rs.4,48,060/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 2. This appeal is filed by the appellant insurance company on the sole ground that pay and recovery was not ordered, though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that at the time of accident, the 4th respondent who rode the Scooter possessed only a learner's licence and he was not authorised to ride the vehicle in violation of rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules. According to the appellant, rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules makes it clear that a vehicle cannot be driven by a person holding learner's licence without complying with the provisions therein and the same would amount to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy of insurance. Therefore, the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal erred in directing the insurance company to pay compensation without ordering recovery from the owner of the vehicle. 3. Despite service of notice by way of paper publication and the names are being printed in the cause list, the owner of the vehicle/5th respondent herein and the person who rode the two-wheeler/4th respondent have not chosen to appear and contest the proceedings. However, the owner deposed before the Tribunal as a witness examined on the side of the insurance company. She was examined as RW3. She admitted that the person who rode the two-wheeler did not possess proper licence and he possessed only learner's licence. 4. I have gone through the award. It is relevant to extract the following passage in paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Tribunal in this regard. “TAMIL” 5. The insurance company examined its official as RW4. The evidence of RW4 was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Tribunal. 4. I have gone through the award. It is relevant to extract the following passage in paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Tribunal in this regard. “TAMIL” 5. The insurance company examined its official as RW4. The evidence of RW4 was dealt with by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Tribunal. The relevant portion in this regard is extracted hereunder:- “TAMIL” In these circumstances, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the appellant, in this case, the Tribunal ought to have ordered pay and recovery. 6. It is well settled that the Apex Court and this Court in a catena of the following decisions, have consistently taken a view that the insurer shall pay the compensation and thereafter, they shall recover the amount from the vehicle owner, whenever the compensation was ordered on the ground that the driver did not posses valid license. The decisions are as follows: (i) 2011(1) TN MAC 641 (SC) - Jawahar Singh Vs. Bala Jain (ii) (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 62 - S.Iyyapan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (iii) 2010(2) TN MAC 388 (DB) - United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. V.Vijayakumar (iv) 2010(2) TN MAC 542 (DB) - Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. P.Manimozhi (v) 2009(2) TN MAC 103 (DB) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. S.Saravanan & another (DB) 7. In view of the categorical pronouncement of this Court and the Apex Court as referred to above, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of by modifying the order of the Tribunal by directing the appellant to pay compensation to the claimants and thereafter recover the same from the owner/insured. The respondents 1 and 2/claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective shares with proportionate accrued interest and costs deposited by the appellant pursuant to the order dated 04.02.2013 of this court. At the time of filing of the claim petition in the year 2009, the 3rd respondent was a minor aged 13 years and now, she would have become major. Hence, she is also permitted to withdraw her share with proportionate interest and costs by making necessary application before the Tribunal, declaring her as major. Consequently, M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013 is closed. No costs.