JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The Insurance Company, whereon, the apposite indemnificatory liability, was, fastened by the learned Tribunal, has through the extant appeal, hence cast a challenge thereon. The learned counsel for the Insurance company has, prima-facie, at this stage, adequately demonstrated that respondent No. 4, was, at the relevant time, driving a motor cycle, whereas, he was authorized to solitarily drive a Light Motor Vehicle, (a) and, with apparently the category of the vehicle, he was driving at the relevant time, hence falling in a contra distinct category, therefrom, in as much as a motor cycle, (b) thereupon the pronouncement recorded by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in (2008) 12 SCC 385 , the relevant paragraph whereof is extracted hereinafter: “In the light of the above settled proposition of law, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants for the cause of death of Shukurullah in road accident which had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of scooter by Ram Surat who admittedly had not valid and effective license to drive the vehicle on the day of accident. The scooterist was possessing a driving license of driving HMV and he was driving a totally different class of vehicle, which act of his is in violation of Section 10 (2) of the MV Act.” (c) wherein, it is clearly expostulated, that, a driver authorized to drive a light motor vehicle, hence not ipso-facto thereupon being also bestowed, with an authorization, to also drive a motor cycle, rather being squarely attracted hereat, (a) the aforesaid submission addressed by the learned counsel, for the Insurance Company, for his hence challenging fastening, of the apposite indemnificatory liability, vis-à-vis it, concomitantly, prima-facie, attains, tremendous legal force. Moreso, when the respondent No. 4 in his cross-examination acquiesced, to the trite factum, of his not at the relevant time, holding the apposite authorization, to drive the offending motor cycle. 2. However, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2015) 2 SCC 186 , Kulwant Singh and others versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited, and (2013) 7 S 62, S. Iyyapan versus United India Insurance Company Limited and another, the apposite indeminificatory liability, is, however fastened upon the owner of the offending vehicle (s). 2. However, in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in (2015) 2 SCC 186 , Kulwant Singh and others versus Oriental Insurance Company Limited, and (2013) 7 S 62, S. Iyyapan versus United India Insurance Company Limited and another, the apposite indeminificatory liability, is, however fastened upon the owner of the offending vehicle (s). Even if the offending vehicle, was, at the relevant time, hence driven by a person, not holding apposite valid driving license, to drive it, yet the Insurer being enjoined to initially defray the compensation amount vis-à-vis the claimants whereafter it being empowered to recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle. Consequently, the compensation amount, assessed vis-à-vis the claimant, in consonance therewith, shall initially be liquidated by the Insurer of the offending vehicle, and, thereafter the insurer shall have the right to recover it, from, the owner. 3. In view of the aforesaid submissions/observations, the appeal is partly allowed. All pending application (s) are disposed of.