1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant, who is the claimant before the Court below, assailing the judgment of XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Criminal Court, Hyderabad in O.P. No. 1597 of 2006, dated 04.01.2008, on the ground that the Court below erred in not directing the insurance company to pay the award amount and recover the same from the insurer.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents does not appear.

3. The Court below did not fix any liability on the insurance company as it was proved that the driver of the vehicle did not have valid driving license on the date of accident.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant only seeks for a direction to the insurance company to pay the award amount and recover the same from the owner.

"This is not a case of no licence. It is a case of the driver not having appropriate driving licence. Cases of this sort went to the Supreme Court several times. The anguish about the insurers approaching the Supreme Court, without minding the rulings of the Court, was expressed by the Supreme Court in Lehru's case 2003 (2) SCR 495 in the following words As is indicated hereafter the question whether an Insurance Company can avoid liability to a third party who is involved in the accident is no longer res integra. It is fully covered by decisions of this Court. We find that in spite of the point being fully covered, in a large number of matters the Insurance Companies are still seeking to get out of liability to third parties on the ground that the licence was fake. We have noticed that many matters are still being brought to this Court on this point. It is therefore necessary to again reiterate the legal position saying so the Supreme Court held as follows:

The law may provide for compensation to victims of the accidents who sustain injuries in the course of an automobile accident a compensation to the dependants of the victims in the case of a fatal accident. However, such protection would remain a protection on paper unless there is a guarantee that the compensation awarded by the courts would be recoverable from the persons held liable for the consequences of the accident. A court can only pass an award or a decree it cannot ensure that such an award or decree results in the amount awarded being actually recovered, from the person held liable who may not have the resources. The exercise undertaken by the law courts would then be an exercise in futility. And the outcome of the legal proceedings which by the very nature of things involve the time cost and money cost invested from the scarce resources of the community would make a mockery of the injured victims, or the dependants of the deceased victim of the accident, who themselves are obliged to incur not inconsiderable expenditure of time, money and energy in litigation. To overcome this ugly situation the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third party insurance is in force. To use the vehicle without the requisite third party insurance being in force is a penal offence. The legislature was also faced with another problem. The insurance policy might provide for liability walled in by conditions which may be specified in the contract of policy. In order to make the protection real, the legislature has also provided that the judgment obtained shall not be defeated by the incorporation of exclusion clauses other than those authorised by Section 96 and by providing that except and save to the extent permitted by Section 96 it will be the obligation of the insurance company to satisfy the judgment obtained against the persons insured against third party risk (vide Section 96). In other words, the legislature has insisted and made it incumbent on the user of a motor vehicle to be armed with an insurance policy covering third party risks which is in conformity with the provisions enacted by the legislature. It is so provided in order to ensure that the inj