JUDGMENT : This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal Sub Judge), Nagercoil, in M.C.O.P.No.105 of 2007, dated 08.12.2011. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the records carefully. 3. It is a case of injury and the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.2,40,000/- as compensation. Though several grounds are raised in the memorandum of grounds, the learned Counsel for the appellant mainly contested the case only on the ground of liability. 4. According to the appellant/insurance company, the rider of the offending motorcycle, the second respondent herein, was not in possession of a valid driving licence at the time of accident. They had issued notices to the second respondent herein as well as the owner of the offending motorcycle/the third respondent herein to produce the driving licence of the second respondent, however, they did not turn up. According to the appellant/insurance company, as there is a violation of policy norms, they are not liable to pay compensation. 5. This aforesaid contention of the appellant was negatived by the tribunal, by stating that in Ex.A.15-charge sheet, the second respondent was not charge sheeted for not having any valid driving licence and charge sheet has been filed only under Sections 279, 337 & 338 I.P.C. However, omission and failure on the part of police authorities to charge the rider under Section 3 r/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicle Act for non-possession of driving licence at the time of accident cannot, by itself, amount to proof of possession of driving licence. The rider and/or the owner of the offending vehicle has to appear before the Courts and prove their possession. 6. Be that as it may, it is an admitted fact that the appellant/insurance company has taken steps, by sending notice to the second respondent/rider as well as the owner of the offending motorcycle/third respondent herein to produce the licence. Proof of service was also deposited before the tribunal. However, they did not turn up, for which, appellant/insurance company should not be find fault with. Proof of service was also deposited before the tribunal. However, they did not turn up, for which, appellant/insurance company should not be find fault with. But, even if the appellant/insurance company is able to discharge the burden of proof that the motorcycle was ridden by an unlicensed person, i.e., there is a violation of policy condition and that it is the owner, who is liable to pay the compensation, this Court is of the view that ends of justice would be met, if pay and recovery is ordered. 7. In this connection, this Court feels it apt to mention the judgment in the case of ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V. NANJAPPAN AND OTHERS reported in 2004(2) CTC 464 , wherein, the mode of recovery has clearly been dealt in paragraph 8 of the judgment, which reads as follows:- “Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court, we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaur's case (supra) that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondent-claimants within three months from today. 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 realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realization 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 orders as to costs. Appeal disposed of accordingly.” 8. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the judgment cited supra, pay and recovery is ordered in the case on hand. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with interest @ 7.5% and costs within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, less the amount already deposited, if any, and on such deposit the first respondent/claimant is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount, with accrued interests and costs, without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal. The appellant/Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the amount from the third respondent/owner as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nanjappan Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, reported in 2003(1)L.W. 77. 9. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. No costs.