Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the Insurance Company. The respondents 1 to 5 are the legal heirs of the deceased, who died in an unfortunate motor accident that took place on 13.05.2008. On 13.05.2008, the deceased-Subramani was collecting garbage in the Karaikudi-Devakottai Road. The sixth respondent drove the minidor van bearing Registration No.TN-63-T-1965 and hit the deceased who was collecting the garbage. Due to the said impact, the deceased sustained injuries and he was taken to hospital at Karaikudi by P.W.2 who was working along with him. He was not admitted as in-patient in the hospital. Later, on 14.05.2008, when he suffered pain, he was taken to the hospital again and thereafter he was referred to Madurai and he was declared died at Madurai on 16.05.2008. The respondents 1 to 5 filed the MCOP No.67 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Devakottai, claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation. The first respondent is the wife of the deceased, and the respondents 2 to 5 are the children of the deceased. The sixth respondent is the driver of the vehicle. The seventh respondent is the owner of the vehicle. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.3,40,000/- as compensation under various heads. 2. The appeal lies in a narrow compass. The appellant has questioned the award on two grounds. Firstly, the award of the Tribunal is assailed on the ground that there is no nexus between the death and the accident and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants. 3. This Court is not inclined to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that there is no nexus between the death and the accident. On a perusal of the evidence of P.W.3, the Doctor, I am of the view that the death was due to the accident only. The accident took place on 13.05.2008. The deceased was collecting garbage and he was hit by the minidor van. He was thrown away and he sustained injuries and subsequently he was admitted to the hospital and treated as out-patient. On the next day, he came to the hospital complaining pain. The hospital at Karaikudi referred him to Madurai. He was taken to the Government Hospital at Madurai and he was taking treatment. While he was taking treatment, he died on 16.05.2008. On the next day, he came to the hospital complaining pain. The hospital at Karaikudi referred him to Madurai. He was taken to the Government Hospital at Madurai and he was taking treatment. While he was taking treatment, he died on 16.05.2008. The sequence of events make it clear that the death was due to the accident. It would have been a different matter, had the deceased died after a long time from the date of accident. If that be so, one could have come to a different conclusion as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant. As per the evidence of P.W.3-Doctor, the deceased died due to head injuries. The learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the head injuries could have been caused due to falling from the staircase of the building or it would have been caused by a sharp weapon. There is no evidence let in by the Insurance Company that the deceased fell down from the staircase and sustained injuries after the accident. 4. The second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the driver of the minidor van did not possess valid driving license, the Tribunal ought to have awarded pay and recovery. In order to establish that the driver did not possess valid driving license, the Insurance Company sent a notice to the driver under Exs.R5 and P6 to produce the license. But the said cover was returned unserved. The driver also remained ex-parte before the Tribunal. Further, the Regional Transport Officer was examined as R.W.1 at the instance of the Insurance Company. He gave evidence that there is no driving license issued to the sixth respondent, as per their records. Hence, the appellant- Insurance Company did discharge their burden to prove that the driver did not possess the valid license. Hence, pay and recovery should have been ordered. The owner of the vehicle has not chosen to appear either before the Tribunal or before this Court. The learned counsel for the claimants has no serious objection to order pay and recovery. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the Tribunal, taking into account Exs.R5 and R6 and also the evidence of R.W.1, should have ordered pay and recovery. 5. The learned counsel for the claimants has no serious objection to order pay and recovery. Under the circumstances, I am of the view that the Tribunal, taking into account Exs.R5 and R6 and also the evidence of R.W.1, should have ordered pay and recovery. 5. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of modifying the judgment and decree dated 03.09.2010 of the Tribunal, by directing the appellant to pay the compensation as ordered by the Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, and the appellant is directed to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. On such deposit being made, the claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective share along with proportionate interest, as per the apportionment made by the Tribunal. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.