JUDGMENT Abdul Quddhose, J. The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award dated 01.10.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I Additional District Judge), Salem in M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2006. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are as follows: (i) One Kandasamy died on 06.09.2005, as a result of an accident caused by a TVS XLl Super Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-30Y8348 owned by the sixth respondent and insured with the appellant. The dependents of the deceased Kandasamy are the respondents 1 to 5 in the instant appeal, who preferred a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2006 seeking a compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/-.(Rupees seven lakhs and fifty thousand only) (ii) The Motor accident Claims Tribunal, by its award dated 01.10.2007 in M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2006, directed the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the respondents 1 to 5, a sum of Rs. 3,63,385/- (Rupees three lakhs sixty three thousand three hundred and eighty five only) together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation. (iii) Aggrieved by the award dated, 01.10.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2006, the instant appeal has been filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company. 3. Xxx XXX XXX 4. Heard, Mr.T.Ravichadran, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Mr.V.Rajesh, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 5 and Mr.C.K.M.Appaji, learned counsel for the sixth respondent. 5. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the instant appeal has been filed only on the ground that pay and recovery rights was not granted to the appellant under the impugned award. According to him, as on the date of accident, the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence. According to him, the driving licence was not produced neither by the claimants nor by the owner of the vehicle before the Tribunal, despite sufficient opportunity being given to them for producing the same. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, would submit that no notice to produce the driving licence was given by the appellant to the sixth respondent. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the sixth respondent, who is the owner of the vehicle, would submit that no notice to produce the driving licence was given by the appellant to the sixth respondent. According to him, it was the consistent stand of the sixth respondent before the Tribunal that he was an Ex-service man and was possessing a valid driving license at the time of the accident. He drew the attention of this Court to the findings of the Tribunal and the impugned award. 7. According to the learned counsel for the sixth respondent, the Tribunal has come to the right conclusion that the sixth respondent, who is the owner-cum-driver, was possessing a valid driving license at the time of the accident. According to him, the appellant Insurance Company did not at any point of time call upon the sixth respondent to produce the driving licence. According to him, no notice was given to the sixth respondent to produce the driving licence. 8. This Court, after having considered the materials available on record and after examining the impugned award and after hearing the submissions of the respective counsels, observes the following: (a) It has been the consistent stand of the sixth respondent, who is the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle, that he was possessing a valid driving license at the time of the accident. The appellant-Insurance Company has also not filed any document before the Tribunal to prove that they had called upon the sixth respondent to produce the driving licence. The sixth respondent has also let in oral evidence before the Tribunal that he was possessing a valid driving licence. Since no contra evidence was produced by the appellant to disprove the contention of the sixth respondent that he was possessing a valid driving licence, the Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that the sixth respondent was having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Since the Tribunal has given a clear finding that the sixth respondent was having a valid driving license, no pay and recovery right was granted to the appellant. In the considered view of this Court, the said finding is a correct finding. (b) Since the appellant has not questioned the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal, there is no necessity to hear the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5. In the considered view of this Court, the said finding is a correct finding. (b) Since the appellant has not questioned the quantum of compensation awarded to the respondents 1 to 5 in this appeal, there is no necessity to hear the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5. 9. In the light of the above observation, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant appeal. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 10. The appellant-insurance company is directed to deposit the entire award amount to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.102 of 2006 along with interest awarded by the Tribunal, less any amount if already deposited, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit being made, the respondents 1 to 5 are entitled to receive their respective shares as per the ratio apportioned by the Tribunal. The respondents 1, 3 to 5 are permitted to withdraw their respective shares on making appropriate application. As far as, minor respondent is concerned, in case of he/she not having attained majority, his respective share shall remain in Court deposit and the 1st Appellant/mother of the minor is permitted to withdraw the interest accrued once in six months.