Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 29th April, 2008, made by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Petition No. 1 of 2006, titled Shri Bhag Chand & others versus Shri Santosh Kumar & another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants-respondents No. 1 to 5 herein and the appellant-insurer i.e. National Insurance Company was saddled with liability (for short, “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants and insured i.e. owner-cum-driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. Only the appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on two grounds, (i) the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the relevant point of time; (ii) the offending vehicle was being driven without requisite documents in terms of the mandate of the provisions contained in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short ‘the Act’, which is a breach. 4. I have gone through the impugned award. 5. The Tribunal has made discussions relating to point No. (ii), supra, in para-27 of the impugned award, which on the face of it, are trash and are not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. 6. Perusal of Ext. RW- 2/A , Temporary Certificate of Registration does disclose that it was valid upto 18th August, 2005. The accident took place on 24th October, 2005. No temporary permit was granted. Thus, it can safely be held that the owner of the offending vehicle had driven the offending vehicle without the registration certificate and other requisite documents, at the relevant time, which on the face of it, is a breach of the mandate of the provisions of Sections 147 & 149 of the Act. In terms of the Insurance Policy Ext. RW-1/A, the mandate of the provisions of Section 43 of the Act has not been followed. Having said so, the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the insurer with the liability. 7. The claimants are the third party. They are entitled to compensation. It is the duty of the insurer to satisfy the liability. RW-1/A, the mandate of the provisions of Section 43 of the Act has not been followed. Having said so, the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the insurer with the liability. 7. The claimants are the third party. They are entitled to compensation. It is the duty of the insurer to satisfy the liability. Having said so, the insurer is granted the right of recovery. 8. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated above and the appeal is disposed of. 9. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. The insurer is at liberty to recover the award amount from the owner. 10. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.