Judgment 1. The only issue argued in this appeal is that the Tribunal committed error in directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation and directing to recover the same from the owner. Such order was passed by the Tribunal, since the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the person, who rode the two wheeler did not posses valid licence to ride the two wheeler, while he possessed the licence to drive Light Motor Vehicle. In such circumstances, the pay and order of recovery was ordered. 2. The Insurance Company has not questioned the quantum of compensation. It is a case of injury. The injured suffered 59% disability. The Tribunal awarded Rs.1,99,000/- with 7.5% interest and the compensation awarded under various heads are as follows: For Disability: Rs. 59,000 For Pain & Suffering: Rs. 10,000 For Nutrition: Rs. 5,000 For Transport: Rs. 5,000 For Medical Expenses: Rs.1,20,000 Total: Rs.1,99,000 3. It is now well settled that the Apex Court and this Court in a catena of the following decisions, has 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) 4. In view of the categorical pronouncement of this Court and the Apex Court as referred to above, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.