Judgment :- This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant Insurance Company against the judgment and decree, dated 24.10.2008, passed in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2007, by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal [Chief Judicial Magistrate], Tirunelveli. 2. The appellant is the second respondent and the first respondent is the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.1 of 2007 and the second respondent is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. 3. The case of the first respondent/claimant is as follows:- That on 29.08.2006, at 7.30 a.m., while he was walking on the left side of Karunkulam-Sanganapuram Main Road from east to west, near Panchayat Union Middle School at Karunkulam, a mini lorry bearing Registration No.TN-59-Y-6361, belonging to the second respondent and insured with the appellant came from the same direction, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn, hit the first respondent. Due to the said impact, he suffered injury and was admitted in Sri Ram Hospital, Italakudi, Nagercoil, from 29.08.2006 to 11.09.2006 as inpatient. The first respondent claimed a sum of Rs.7,10,000/- as compensation, but he restricted his claim upto Rs.3,00,000/- before the Tribunal. 4. The appellant has filed counter affidavit before the Tribunal denying all the allegations. It is stated that the driver of the second respondent did not have a valid driving licence and thereby, violated the conditions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the terms of Insurance Policy. The accident took place, only due to negligence of the first respondent, as he was proceeding in the bicycle in a zig-zag manner and suddenly came to the middle of the road and he is also equally responsible for the accident. The appellant did not admit the age, occupation and income of the first respondent. The first respondent was taking treatment at Sri Ram Hospital, Italakudi, Nagercoil, from 29.08.2006 to 11.09.2006 as outpatient. The monthly income of the first respondent was highly boosted up and the claim amount of Rs.3,00,000/- is highly excessive and the appellant is not liable to pay any amount as compensation to him. 5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, the first respondent/claimant was examined as PW.1 and Dr.Ramaguru was examined as PW.2 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the appellant, two witnesses were examined as RWs.1 and 2 and seven documents were marked as RWs.1 and 7. 6. 5. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimant, the first respondent/claimant was examined as PW.1 and Dr.Ramaguru was examined as PW.2 and seven documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P7. On behalf of the appellant, two witnesses were examined as RWs.1 and 2 and seven documents were marked as RWs.1 and 7. 6. The Tribunal considering all the materials on record, came the conclusion that the accident took place only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the second respondent. The driver of the second respondent did not possess any driving licence at the time of accident. As the driver of the vehicle failed to produce the driving licence, the appellant issued notices to the driver and owner of the vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal held that the appellant is not entitled to pay any compensation, but held that since the vehicle is insured with the appellant, he must pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the second respondent. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of PW.2, and awarded a sum of Rs.71,168/- as compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit and directed the appellant to pay the said amount and recover the same from the second respondent herein. The compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads are as under: Sl.No. Heads Amount 1 Pain and suffering 15,000 2 Permanent disability 15,000 3 Nutritious food 5,000 4 Medical expenses 34,418 5 Transport expenses 750 6 Loss of income during treatment period 1,000 Total 71,168 The Tribunal rejected the claim of the first respondent with regard to loss of earning capacity and mental agony. 7. Against the said Judgment and decree, dated 24.10.2008, the appellant has filed the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the driver of the vehicle as well as the second respondent failed to produce the original driving licence, in spite of notices sent by the appellant. The Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and also Exs.R1 to R7. The Tribunal having held that the driver of the mini lorry did not have any valid driving licence, erred in fastening the liability as against the appellant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle/second respondent. The Tribunal failed to consider the evidence of RWs.1 and 2 and also Exs.R1 to R7. The Tribunal having held that the driver of the mini lorry did not have any valid driving licence, erred in fastening the liability as against the appellant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle/second respondent. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Tribunal ought to have totally exonerated the appellant from the liability. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the first respondent/claimant contended that the Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation, even though the Tribunal rejected the claim of the first respondent/claimant under loss of earning capacity and mental agony. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials on record. 11. The appellant has not challenged the quantum of compensation and has challenged only a portion of the award, wherein the appellant was directed to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the second respondent. It is not in dispute that the second respondent had insured the vehicle involved in the accident with the appellant and the insurance policy of the vehicle was in force at the time of accident. At the time of accident, the driver of the mini lorry belonging to the second respondent did not have a valid driving licence. Therefore, the Tribunal rightly held that the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation. But, in view of valid insurance policy held by the second respondent, the Tribunal directed the appellant to pay the compensation amount and recover the same from the second respondent. The first respondent was aged 75 years at the time of accident and he suffered grievous injury by loosing a part of the limb in the leg. 12. It is well settled that the Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in a catena of 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 and effective driving licence. 13. In ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai, and others Vs. 13. In ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai, and others Vs. Annakkili and others, reported in 2012 (1) TN MAC 226, this Court following the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the decisions of the various High Courts, held that payment of compensation to a third party accident victim is statutory in nature and that there cannot be any total exoneration. This Court has also held that if the insurance company is able to discharge the burden of proof that the vehicle being driven by an unlicensed person and that there was a breach, pay and recovery alone can be made. The said legal position has been reiterated in 2013 [7] SCC 62 [S.Iyyapan Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.]. 14. In view of the categorical pronouncement of this Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred to above, I do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal directing the appellant to pay compensation and recover the same from the second respondent. The civil miscellaneous appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.