JUDGMENT Akil Kureshi,J. - This Appeal is filed by the insurance company to challenge an award dated 23.08.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Unakoti Judicial District, Kailashahar in T.S. (MAC) No.06 of 2019. 2. Though served, no one appeared for the respondents i.e. the original claimants and the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. 3. Brief facts are that one Chanmani Sinha, aged about 84 years, met with a fatal vehicular accident on 23.04.2018. The claimants were his son and two daughters. They filed the said claim petition seeking compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,11,000/- to the claimants and the award would be satisfied by the insurance company. 4. Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the insurance company raised two contentions. Firstly, that the deceased being aged 84 years, the Tribunal committed an error in applying multiplier of 5 and secondly, that the driving license of the driver of the vehicle was not produced. In fact, he had no valid driving license and therefore, the insurance company should have been absolved from the liability to satisfy the award. 5. The record would show that though the vehicle was duly insured, neither the owner nor the driver produced a valid driving license. The owner did enter the witness box but did not produce the license. The driver did not appear at all. In absence of any evidence of the driver holding a valid driving license, the Tribunal ought to have absolved the insurance company from its liability to satisfy the award. However, the principle of pay and recover would be applied in the present case. 6. Coming to the question of quantum of compensation, few issues would certainly arise such as the ability of an 84 year old person to on an income, the multiplier that may be chosen for awarding compensation in case of a death of a person of that age as also the question whether sons and daughters aged more than 50 years can be stated to be his dependants. However, the owner whose primary liability is to satisfy the award has not come in Appeal. I have just concluded that the insurance company would be absolved of its liability to satisfy the award. The total compensation awarded is also not very large. 7. However, the owner whose primary liability is to satisfy the award has not come in Appeal. I have just concluded that the insurance company would be absolved of its liability to satisfy the award. The total compensation awarded is also not very large. 7. In the result, this Appeal is disposed of with the following directions: (i) The insurance company is absolved of its liability to satisfy the award. However, the insurance company would pay the awarded amount to the claimants and would be entire due to recover such sum from the owner of the vehicle without filing a separate suit for such purpose. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.