Judgment 1. The only issue argued in this appeal is that the Tribunal committed error in directing the appellant Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation and directing to recover the same from the 7th respondent herein, who is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. Such order was passed by the Tribunal, since the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the person, who rode the vehicle did not posses valid licence to ride the same. In such circumstances, the pay and recovery order was passed. 2. The Insurance Company has not questioned the quantum of compensation. It is a case of death. The 2nd and 3rd claimants lost their son at the age of 25 years. The 4th to 6th claimants lost their brother. The multiplier adopted by the Tribunal was at 17, taking into account the age of the deceased. The Tribunal awarded Rs.12,91,000/- with 7.5% interest and the compensation awarded under various heads. 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. The learned counsel for the respondent has also relied in a decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Shri Nanjappan and others reported in (2004) ACC 524 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has held that how to recover the award amount from the owner of the vehicle. The relevant portion in para 7 is extracted herein: "For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. Ltd., Vs. Shri Nanjappan and others reported in (2004) ACC 524 (SC), wherein the Apex Court has held that how to recover the award amount from the owner of the vehicle. The relevant portion in para 7 is extracted herein: "For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the Executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport Authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realisation by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs." 5. In view of the categorical pronouncement of this Court and the Apex Court as referred to above, the appeal is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.