JUDGMENT : T. KRISHNAVALLI, J. 1. The Appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Karur, in MCOP No.1 of 2008, dated 20.12.2010. 2. The respondents 1 to 4 herein as claimants filed MCOP No.1 of 2008 against the appellant and the respondents 5 and 6 herein before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Karur, alleging that on 15.09.2007 at about 10.15 am, the deceased Jeganathan was riding his Hero Honda Splendor Motor Cycle bearing registration No.TN-09-S-2506 towards south to north near Prabhu Blue Metals at Karur to Dindigul Road, at that time, the driver of the Quails Car bearing registration No.KA-04-A-6519 came from north to south in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the motor cycle, which was driven by the deceased. In that process, the deceased was thrown away and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and thereafter, he was taken to City Hospital, Dindigul and in spite of better treatment, he died on 18.10.2007. The claimants filed the claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.25,00,000/-. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company argued that at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle/R1's driver had no driving licence to drive the vehicle and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation. Per contra, on the side of the respondents 1 to 4/claimants submitted that at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had valid licence to drive the vehicle and hence, the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation. 4. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 5. In this case, on the side of the Appellant Insurance Company/R2, four witnesses were examined as RW1 to RW4 to prove that at the time of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence. 6. RW1 stated during his evidence that the licence particulars stated in the petition and the first respondent belongs to one Thiruppathi and does not belong to the first respondent driver Sankarsubbu, who had driven the Car, at the time of the accident. RW2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. He deposed that at the time of Inspection of the offending vehicle, the first respondent driver has not produced the licence. RW2 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. He deposed that at the time of Inspection of the offending vehicle, the first respondent driver has not produced the licence. RW3 is the Sales Manager of the Appellant Insurance Company/R2. RW3 stated during his evidence that R1's driver has not produced the driving licence. RW4 deposed that R1's driver had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 7. It is seen from the records that the Appellant Insurance Company/R2 sent notice to the owner of the offending vehicle/R1 and the driver of the offending vehicle calling upon them to produce the licence of the offending vehicle. But the notices were returned as un-served. The copy of the Advocate notice was marked as Ex.R3. The un-served notices were marked as Ex.R4 and R5. Hence, it is held that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle knowingly fully well refused to receive the notices sent by the Appellant Insurance Company/R2. 8. On careful perusal of Exs.R1 to R4, it reveals that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid licence to drive the offending vehicle and without having licence to drive the vehicle amounts to violation of the policy condition. In the instant case, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company, the Insurance company has established before the Tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving licence. 9. It is settled law that even the appellant Insurance Company has proved the violation of the policy condition before the tribunal, the appellant Insurance Company has to first pay the award amount and thereafter, recover from the owner of the vehicle/insurer. This court is of the considered view that the award of the Tribunal is fair and reasonable and it is ordered that the appellant Insurance Company to pay the award amount first and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle/insurer. 10. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed. The appellant Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire amount together with interest and costs, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already deposited. On such deposit, the major claimants are permitted to withdraw their share as per the apportionment of the tribunal without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal. On such deposit, the major claimants are permitted to withdraw their share as per the apportionment of the tribunal without filing any formal petition before the Tribunal. The Appellant Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the award amount with interest and costs from the owner of the offending vehicle/R1, by following the mode in Nanjappan's case [ (2004)13 SCC 224 ]. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.