JUDGMENT 1. This Misc. Appeal under Sec. 173(1) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dtd. 03/11/2018 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri (M.P.) in Claim Case No.09/2010, whereby the Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability of compensation. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 9/2/2010 deceased Vetal Singh was going to Kolaras from his village by the motor-cycle with his relative as they reached near of Gas Filer Godam A.B, Road PS Kolaras, at that time, one truck bearing registration No. HR-38-K-5255 which was coming rash and negligent manner dashed to the motor-cycle of deceased, due to which, he sustained grievous injuries in various ports of his body and died on spot. 3. First information report was lodged against the respondent No.1 driver of the offending vehicle in Police Station Kolaras Distt. Shivpuri (M.P.) registered at crime No.33/2010 under Ss. 337, 338, 304-A of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before competent court against respondent No.1/driver. 4. For claiming compensation due to death of deceased- Vetal Singh on account of accident, appellants filed claim petition before learned Claims Tribunal against all the respondents stating therein that deceased Vetal Singh was doing the work of security guard and was earning as sum of Rs.7500.00 per month by which he used to maintain himself and his family members. Because of death on account of accident, appellants deprived all the facilities being provided by deceased and also be provided in future. Hence, appellants claimed Rs.11, 95, 000.00 before learned Claims Tribunal against all the respondents. 5. The respondents no.1 and 2 and respondent No.3/Insurance company appeared before the learned claims tribunal and filed their written statement and dined each and every contents made in the claim petition. Insurance company further stated in its written statement that at the time of accident, vehicle was being used in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy and without effective and valid driving license, 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, Tribunal allowed the claim petition vide award dtd. 12/01/2011 and awarded compensation a sum of Rs.5, 90, 000.00 with 7% interest per annum against all the respondents. Against the award dtd. 6. Claims Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence produced by the parties and after hearing arguments, Tribunal allowed the claim petition vide award dtd. 12/01/2011 and awarded compensation a sum of Rs.5, 90, 000.00 with 7% interest per annum against all the respondents. Against the award dtd. 12/01/2011, Insurance Company filed appeal before this Court stating therein that at the time of accident, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle. Insurance company also filed stay application as well as an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for taking some document on record. This Court granted stay, thereafter, remanded the matter back vide order dtd. 23/02/2018 to the Claims Tribunal for deciding the case on the basis of the documents and after giving of hearing. In compliance of order dtd. 23/02/2018, Claims tribunal afforded opportunity to both the parties for examination, cross-examination, thereafter, matter was finally heard. Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that at the time of accident, vehicle in question was being driven in the violation of terms and condition of insurance policy and without effective and valid driving license, exonerated to the insurance company from the liability. Being aggrieved by the impugned award passed by the learned claims tribunal, this appeal has been preferred. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the award passed by claims Tribunal is perverse, illegal and against the settled principles of law. It is further submitted that Claims Tribunal while deciding the case issue No.4, came to the conclusion that at the time of accident, vehicle in question was being plied without valid and effective driving license on this ground exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability. 8. In support of his contentions of learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the decision of Apex court in the case of 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. 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. Appellants only want 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. 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 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 appellants, 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 appellants which may be recovered from the respondent No.1/driver and respondent No.2/owner. 14. Resultantly, the award dtd. 03/11/2018 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shivpuri (M.P.) in Claim Case No.09/2010 is modified to the extent mentioned above. 15. This Misc. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.