JUDGMENT: 1. Aggrieved by the Award and decree dated 12.04.2006 passed in O.P.No.167 of 2003, on the file of the I-Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore (herein after referred to as ‘Claims Tribunal’), the present appeal has been preferred. 2. The appellant i.e., the 2nd respondent-Insurance company in the aforesaid O.P., filed the present appeal and the facts relevant for the purpose of the present appeal are briefly narrated as under: 3. The 1st respondent who is the claimant filed O.P.No.167 of 2003 on the file of the I-Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nellore, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that took place on 06.09.2002. The appellant/2nd respondent-Insurance company filed its counter, inter alia, contending that the driver of the offending vehicle is not having driving license as on the date of accident i.e., on 06.09.2002 and that since there is a violation of terms and conditions of policy, the appellant/2nd respondent-insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. In support of his case, the claimant/1st respondent himself was examined as P.W.1 and the Doctor as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.8. On behalf of the appellant/2nd respondent-Insurance company, R.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 & B.2 were marked. 5. The Claims Tribunal after considering the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties, allowed the claim partly and awarded a sum of Rs.92,440/- (Rupees Ninety two thousand four hundred and forty only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum against the respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition (respondent No.2 and appellant herein respectively). Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/2nd respondent-Insurance company preferred the present appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/2nd respondent-Insurance company, inter alia, contended that the Claims Tribunal erred in allowing the claim petition against the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company, more particularly, when the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving license as on the date of accident. He asserts that as per Ex.B.1 the period of driving license is from 30.11.2002 to 30.06.2012 which means that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid driving license as on the date of accident i.e., on 06.09.2002. He asserts that as per Ex.B.1 the period of driving license is from 30.11.2002 to 30.06.2012 which means that the rider of the motorcycle was not holding a valid driving license as on the date of accident i.e., on 06.09.2002. In such view of the matter, he submits that when there is a violation of the terms of the policy and provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company cannot be held liable. He also submits that though the Claims Tribunal has rightly observed to the effect that the insurance company cannot escape its liability but it can recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle, no such liberty was given to the insurance company to first pay the compensation awarded and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In this context, the learned counsel for the appellant relies on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manuara Khatun & Others v. Rajesh Kr. Singh & Others, (2017) 4 SCC 796 , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court directed the insurance company to first pay the awarded amount and permitted it to recover the awarded sum from the owner in execution proceedings arising in the very case. As seen from the Judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant referred to above, the Hon’ble Apex Court while following the Law laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd., v. Saju P.Paul and another, (2013) 2 SCC 41 directed the insurance company to first pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the awarded sum from the owner in Execution Proceedings arising in the very case. 7. In the present case, the facts with reference to the accident and the injuries suffered by the claimant/1st respondent are not in dispute. Even the Claims Tribunal made observation to the effect that in cases where there is no valid license as on the date of accident, insurance company has to pay the claim and thereafter proceed against the owner, but it went wrong in allowing the said O.P., with a direction to the respondents to pay the amount awarded jointly and severally. Even the Claims Tribunal made observation to the effect that in cases where there is no valid license as on the date of accident, insurance company has to pay the claim and thereafter proceed against the owner, but it went wrong in allowing the said O.P., with a direction to the respondents to pay the amount awarded jointly and severally. The Claims Tribunal ought to have followed the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh & Others, (2004) ACJ 1 (SC), and granted liberty to the insurance company to pay the amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 8. Therefore, the Award of the Claims Tribunal, insofar as not granting liberty to the appellant/2nd respondent-Insurance company is not tenable, as it could establish its defence that there is violation of terms and conditions of policy. Accordingly, following the latest Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Manuara Khatun’ s case (referred to supra) the Award and Decree of the Claims Tribunal is modified with a direction to the appellant/2nd respondent-Insurance company to first pay the awarded compensation including interest in terms of the decree within a period of three months. The insurance company is permitted to recover the awarded sum/compensation amount including interest from the owner of the vehicle i.e., the 2nd respondent herein, in Execution Proceedings arising in the very case. On deposit of amounts as directed, the claimant/1st respondent is entitled to withdraw the same. No order as to costs. 9. Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed off modifying the Award and Decree of the Claims Tribunal, as indicated above. 10. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand dismissed.