JUDGMENT 1. This Misc. Appeal under Sec. 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dtd. 05/08/2016 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lahar, Disrict Bhind (M.P.) in Claim Case No.06/2016 by which the issue no.3 in respect to the liability is decided in favour of the Insurance Company resulting the exoneration of the Insurance Company from the liability of compensation. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 19/5/2015 at about 5:30 p.m., appellant was standing near the house of one Munnalal Sharma beside the road and was talking with someone. Thereafter, his father arrived there, at that time, one Mahindra Commander Jeep bearing registration No. MP06-B-6487 coming from opposite side being driven very rash and negligent manner by the driver of the aforesaid Jeep hit to the appellant, due to which, appellant fell down on the road and wheel of the vehicle passed over his left leg, due to which, appellant sustained grievous injuries on various parts of his body and also sustained fracture on the left leg. Initially, appellant was brought to primary health center Mihona. Thereafter, Primary Health Center, Raun. Lastly, he was referred to District Hospital Bhind (M.P.), wherein MLC was carried out and he was admitted on the same day. His injuries were examined, X-ray were taken and operation were carried out. In the X-ray, fracture of left leg was found. Appellant was remained under treatment in the District Hospital Bhind (M.P.) for a long time. Thereafter, again he was got admitted in the District Hospital Bhind (M.P.) and his injuries were examined and operation was carried out. During treatment in hospital and after that appellant spent more money, suffered pain and permanent disability as 25%. 3. The First Information Report was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle in police station Mihona Distt. Bhind (M.P.) registered at crime No.33/2015 under Ss. 279, 337 & 338 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. During treatment in hospital and after that appellant spent more money, suffered pain and permanent disability as 25%. 3. The First Information Report was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle in police station Mihona Distt. Bhind (M.P.) registered at crime No.33/2015 under Ss. 279, 337 & 338 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed. 4. For claiming compensation due to injuries on account of accident, appellant preferred claim petition before learned Claims Tribunal against all the respondents, stating therein that appellant was 19 year old young and healthy boy and he was doing the work of labour and also doing the work of selling milk from which he was earning 10,000/- per month because of accident appellant suffered 25% permanent disability. Hence, appellant claimed Rs.5,00,000.00 from all the respondents. 5. The respondents No.1, 2 and respondent No.3/Insurance Company appeared before the learned Claims Tribunal filed their written statement and denied each and every content made in the claim petition. Insurance Company stated in its written statement that at the time of accident, vehicle was being used in the violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy and without effective and valid driving license. Hence, Insurance Company prayed for dismissal the claim petition against the Insurance Company. 6. Claims Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence produced by the parties and after hearing arguments of both the parties, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000.00. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Claims Tribunal while deciding issue No.3 with regard to liability of Insurance Company decided in favor of Insurance Company, exonerating it from the liability on the ground that at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid driving license. It is further submitted that even if respondent no.1 was not holding valid driving license to drive the offending vehicle, still Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation, which can be recovered from respondents No.1 & 2. It is submitted that Insurance Company did not produce any oral as well as documentary evidence with respect to driving license, therefore, burden lies on respondent No.3/Insurance Company, and the findings with respect to the exoneration of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company from its liability is liable to be set aside. 8. It is submitted that Insurance Company did not produce any oral as well as documentary evidence with respect to driving license, therefore, burden lies on respondent No.3/Insurance Company, and the findings with respect to the exoneration of the respondent No.3/Insurance Company from its liability is liable to be set aside. 8. In support of his contentions of learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the decision of Apex court in Nirmala Kothari Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. [2020 SCC Online SC 286] as well as the order passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Smt. Munesh Adiwashi and Ors. decided on 12/10/2020 in M.A. No.1294/2012 and has contended that if any breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy are committed then it is the matter between owner, driver and insurance company for that claimant being a third party may not be punished. 9. Per contra, the appeal is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondents. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company supported the award as regards quantum of compensation and submitted that respondent No.3/Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated and prayed for dismissal of appeal. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. In this appeal, the factum of accident and quantum of compensation is not disputed by the parties. Appellant only wants to get compensation from Insurance Company with liberty to recover the same from respondents No.01 & 02. 12. The Supreme Court in the case of Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra [ (2018) 10 SCC 432 ], Manuara Khatun Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh [ 2017 ACJ 1031 ] & Shamanna and another Vs. Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others,[ (2018) 9 SCC 650 ] observed that in the case of breach of policy directions against the Insurance Company to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the said sum from the insured be given by applying the principle of "pay and recover". The Insurance Policy is a contract between the insured and the insurer and the insurer agrees to indemnify the insured against all the claims arising out of use of vehicle, however, such contract is subject to the conditions that the vehicle shall not be plied or driven contrary to the provisions of law as well as Insurance Policy. The Insurance Policy is a contract between the insured and the insurer and the insurer agrees to indemnify the insured against all the claims arising out of use of vehicle, however, such contract is subject to the conditions that the vehicle shall not be plied or driven contrary to the provisions of law as well as Insurance Policy. Thus, it is clear that the insurer/Insurance Company can get away from its liability of indemnifying the insured by proving that the vehicle was being used contrary to the Insurance Policy. However, the claimants are completely stranger to the contract between the insured and the insurer. Once, the Insurance Company had agreed to indemnify the insured than it would be a dispute between the insured and the insurer as to whether the vehicle was being used contrary to the conditions of Insurance Policy or not? But the claimants cannot be made to suffer because of interse dispute between the insured and the insurer. Once, the vehicle is insured, then the Insurance Company must satisfy the award and if it is found by the Claims Tribunal that the vehicle was being used contrary to the conditions of Insurance Policy, then the right to recover the amount has been given to the Insurance Company without filing a separate suit against the insured. 13. In the present case, the quantum of compensation amount has not been challenged by the appellant, therefore, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is maintained. The findings of Tribunal to exonerate the respondent No.3/Insurance Company from its liability to pay is hereby affirmed, however, in the light of principles laid down by Apex Court as above, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the appellant which may be recovered from the respondent No.1/driver and respondent No.2/owner. 14. Resultantly, the Award dtd. 5/8/2016 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Lahar District Bhind (M.P.) in Claim Case No.06/2016 is modified to the extent mentioned above. 15. This Misc. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.