JUDGMENT : This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and award dated 09.07.2010 passed in M.V.C.No.1387/2006, on the file of the Fast Track Court-V and MACT, Mysore (‘the Tribunal’ for short), fastening the liability on the appellant/insured. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that the claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased Ganesh Murthy. The deceased was aged about 65 years at the time of the accident and he was doing welding work and thereby earning Rs.250/-per day. Out of his income, he was maintaining the family. That on 10.08.2006 at about 8.45 p.m., on B.M.Sree Main Road near Nandini Milk Centre, Mysore City, the deceased Ganesh Murthy was crossing the road. At that time, a Kinetic Honda motor bike rider came in a rash and negligent manner in the extreme right side of the road and hit the said Ganeshh Murthy. As a result, the said Ganesh Murthy sustained injuries and he was shifted to K.R.Hospital, Mysore and thereafter to JSS Hospital, Mysore, wherein he was treated from 10.08.2006 to 17.08.2006. Unfortunately, on 17.08.2006 he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal by the legal heirs of the deceased Ganesh Murthy. 3. In pursuance of the claim petition, notice was issued against respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent No.1 was placed exparte. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were represented though their counsel and filed the objection statement. Respondent No.2 – owner of the vehicle, in his written statement, took the defence that the vehicle was sold and possession was delivered to respondent No.1 on 09.08.2006 itself after obtaining the delivery note duly signed by respondent No.1. It is also contended that intimation of transfer of the vehicle to respondent No.1 was given to the RTO on the very same day. Hence, as on the date of the accident, he was not the owner of the offending vehicle and it was not at all in his possession and there was a valid insurance to the offending vehicle and hence claimed that the petition has to be dismissed against him. 4. Respondent No.3 in the written statement denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and also compensation claimed in the petition. It is contended that the liability is subjected to terms and conditions of the policy and valid driving licence. 5. 4. Respondent No.3 in the written statement denied the age, occupation and income of the deceased and also compensation claimed in the petition. It is contended that the liability is subjected to terms and conditions of the policy and valid driving licence. 5. The claimants in order to substantiate their claim examined petitioner No.1 – wife of the deceased as P.W.1 and more witness as P.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 11. On the other hand, respondent No.2 examined himself as R.W.1 and got marked the documents at Ex.D.1. The Insurance Company also examined one witness as R.W.2 and marked the documents at Exs.D.2 and 3. 6. The Tribunal after considering both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, allowed the petition in part and exonerated the liability of the Insurance Company and directed the owner/insured to pay the compensation. Hence, the present appeal is by the owner/appellant. 7. The main contention in the appeal is that the vehicle was already sold on 09.08.2006 and intimation was given to the RTO, Mysore. The Tribunal did not apply its mind to the said fact. It is also contended that the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. The Tribunal also did not consider the fact that in the first FIR, which was registered on the date of the accident, one vehicle with registration was shown as involved in the accident. In the second FIR filed after eight days, the vehicle sold by the appellant to respondent No.1 was shown to have been involved in the accident. This clearly shows that the vehicle mentioned in the first FIR was not covered by insurance and for the purpose of claiming the compensation, the appellant’s vehicle which had insurance coverage, was mentioned in the second FIR. It is also contended that the Tribunal did not consider the important evidence of medical report that the deceased was drunk when the accident took place. He was one among the group of eight people and he was not alone. The appellant also contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding higher compensation. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant also vehemently contended that the policy was in force and when the policy was in force, the Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability. The legal heirs are also the third parties. The appellant also contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in awarding higher compensation. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant also vehemently contended that the policy was in force and when the policy was in force, the Insurance Company cannot avoid the liability. The legal heirs are also the third parties. In support of his contentions, he relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of SRI KRISHNASHETTY v. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2009 KAR 4111. Referring this judgment the learned counsel would submit that when there is a transfer of ownership of the motor vehicle in respect of which there is certificate of insurance, the policy described in the certificate shall be deemed to have been transferred in favour of the person to whom the motor vehicle was transferred with effect from the date of its transfer. 9. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of RIKHI RAM AND ANOTHER v. SMT. SUKHRANIA AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2003 SC 1446 . Referring this judgment, the learned counsel would submit that when the third party risks are involved, the liability of the Insurance Company does not cease in the absence of intimation of transfer of vehicle to the Insurance Company. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.3 of the judgment and would submit that the object behind the legislation was that third party right should not suffer on account of failure to comply with the terms of the insurance policy. 10. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that the Tribunal fastened the liability on two grounds. One is with regard to the vehicle was standing in the name of the insured/appellant. The learned counsel also did not dispute the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra. The only contention is that as on the date of the accident, the rider was not having driving licence. The very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Court can pass an order of pay and recover, cannot be accepted. The claimants, who are the third parties have not approached the Court, instead the owner himself has approached this Court. Hence, the question of pay and recover also does not arise. The very contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Court can pass an order of pay and recover, cannot be accepted. The claimants, who are the third parties have not approached the Court, instead the owner himself has approached this Court. Hence, the question of pay and recover also does not arise. Pay and recover arises only if the insured does not participate in the matter and a direction can be issued to the Insurance Company to pay and recover the same from the insured. The situation in this case is not like that. Hence, the very contention of the insured cannot be accepted. 11. Having heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the point that arise for the consideration of this Court are: (i) Whether the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insured/appellant and whether it requires interference of this Court? 12. Having heard the submissions of the respective learned counsel, there is no dispute with regard to the accident and also no dispute with regard to the policy was in force as on the date of the accident. It is also the case of the insured that he sold the vehicle in favour of respondent No.1 on 09.08.2006 itself and the accident took place on 10.08.2006. The insured also led the evidence before the Tribunal examining himself as R.W.1. The insured reiterated the defence which he had taken in the written statement in his affidavit. He was subjected to cross-examination. 13. In the cross-examination, he admits that in Ex.D.1 there was no any endorsement for transfer of the vehicle. He also admits that after the receipt of the notice of this claim, he did not meet the respondent No.1. It is suggested that Ex.D.1 was created for the purpose of this case and the same was denied. However, he admits that RC was in his name. Again he volunteers that he is not aware of the same. He says that he does not know whether RC was transferred in favour of respondent No.1 or not before the accident. The Insurance Company also put a question whether he had verified that respondent No.1 was having driving licence to drive the vehicle or not at the time of selling the vehicle and he admits he did not. He says that he does not know whether RC was transferred in favour of respondent No.1 or not before the accident. The Insurance Company also put a question whether he had verified that respondent No.1 was having driving licence to drive the vehicle or not at the time of selling the vehicle and he admits he did not. He also admits that after selling the vehicle, he has not given any application for transfer of vehicle in favour of respondent No.1. 14. The Insurance Company also led its evidence by examining its Assistant Manager as R.W.2. R.W.2 in his affidavit claims that the Company is liable to pay the compensation subject to terms and conditions of the policy and not disputed the fact that the policy was in force. The main contention was taken that owner entrusted the vehicle to an unauthorised and unlicensed person to drive the vehicle by violating the terms and conditions of the policy. On the said ground also the Company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is also contended that the Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet against the rider under Section 279, 304(A) of IPC read with section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Hence, it is clear that he was not having driving licence. This witness was subjected to cross-examination. 15. In the cross-examination, he admits that the Company is having the practice to investigate the matter and also giving notice to the owner. He admits that he has not produced any copy of the notice and acknowledgment for having served the same on the owner. He admits that he came to know recently that the rider was not having driving licence. Further, he admits that while filing the written statement, they were not aware of the same. He admits that after filing the claim petition, they have not met the owner or the rider. He claims that he came to know that the driver was not having driving licence during the course of investigation and the charge-sheet is also filed. Except the charge-sheet, they are not having any documents. 16. Having perused the oral evidence and also the contentions of the parties, the learned counsel for the insured relied upon the judgments of this Court and also the Apex Court. There is no dispute with regard to the principles laid down in the judgment. Except the charge-sheet, they are not having any documents. 16. Having perused the oral evidence and also the contentions of the parties, the learned counsel for the insured relied upon the judgments of this Court and also the Apex Court. There is no dispute with regard to the principles laid down in the judgment. When the policy was in force, even if the vehicle is transferred to some other person, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation if the policy is in force. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company also did not dispute the principles laid down in the judgments referred supra. Hence, the very observation of the Tribunal that no intimation was given to the RTO and not produced any documents, is erroneous. But the fact that the vehicle was standing in the name of respondent No.2 is not in dispute. R.W.1 – owner himself admits the same. But he claims that the vehicle was sold on the previous day of the accident and the fact that the policy was in force is also not disputed by the Insurance Company. Hence, the Tribunal has committed an error in coming to the conclusion that formalities of sale have not been completed as on the date of the accident, since R.W.1 has produced the delivery note. This Court cannot find fault with the observation of the Tribunal that RC still stands in the name of respondent No.2. 17. The other contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has committed an error in fastening the liability on the ground that there was no valid driving licence is erroneous. The Tribunal made an observation in the judgment in paragraph No.18 while considering the liability to pay the compensation and observed that respondent No.1 had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The Tribunal also observed that the Court has perused Ex.D.3 – copy of the final report/charge-sheet and found that the driver of the vehicle was not having driving licence and he has been charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of the MV Act. The Tribunal comes to a conclusion that he was not having driving licence. The Tribunal comes to a conclusion that he was not having driving licence. It is important to note that in the cross-examination of R.W.1, a question was put to him whether he had verified at the time of selling the vehicle in favour of respondent No.1 whether he was having driving licence or not and he categorically admits that he did not verify the same. The insured also did not dispute the fact that the driver was not having the driving licence. When such being the case, the question of liability of the Insurance Company does not arise. The terms and conditions of the policy is very clear that if there is no valid driving licence, the Insurance Company is not liable. The law is also clear on this aspect. Hence, I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in fastening the liability on the insured. 18. The learned counsel for the insured/appellant would submit that if the policy is in force, the Insurance Company has to pay the amount and recover the same from the insured. The said contention cannot be accepted for the reason that this appeal is not filed by the legal heirs of the deceased and the same is filed by the insured himself. If the legal heirs of the deceased had filed this appeal, then there would have been a force in the contention of the insured. No doubt, the claimants are the third parties. The Apex Court and also this Court has directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation and recover the same from the insured, only with an object to protect the interest of the third parties. In the case on hand, the insured appeared and contested the matter before the Tribunal and also filed this appeal. When such being the case, the question of directing the Insurance Company to pay and recover from the insured does not arise. The primary liability is on the insured to pay the compensation. When this appeal is filed by the insured himself, there cannot be a direction to the Insurance Company to pay and recover the same. 19. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The appeal is dismissed.