Gudiseva Shyam Prasad, J.

This Motor Accidents Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is arising out of the order dated 17.09.2009 in O.P.No.1015 of 2005 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge) (Fast Track Court) at Khammam (for short, Tribunal).

2. This is an appeal filed by National Insurance Company Limited, the second respondent in OP.No.1015 of 2005. The said OP was filed by the injured, claiming compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- on account of injuries sustained by him in a motor accident occurred on 03.12.2004.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal.

4. The brief facts of the case are that on 03.12.2004, the petitioner, along with his family members, went to Arempula Darga in an auto bearing No.AP20W 0100. After completion of function, at about 5.30 pm., while they were returning in the same auto, the driver of the auto driven the auto in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the tractor bearing registration No.AP20V 8411/8412, as a result of which, the petitioner sustained fracture of left hand both bones, fracture 1/3rd at lower, 1/3rd of left femur, fracture of 1/3rd left radius and other injuries. His left leg was also amputated.

5. The Tribunal, on consideration of oral and documentary evidence, awarded total compensation of Rs.3,18,000/- i.e., Rs.2,88,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, extra nourishment and medical expenses and Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, holding that respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay the same. The second respondent - National Insurance Company Limited, filed the present appeal challenging the said award on the ground that it has no liability to pay the compensation amount as the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence.

6. The short point that arises in this appeal is whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimants in the absence of possessing a valid driving licence?

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the driver of the crime vehicle is possessing a licence to drive one type of vehicle, but he has driven another type of vehicle for which he was not having driving licence. Therefore, it is submitted that in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) 7 SCC 62, pay and recovery may be ordered.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in the light of the above said case, pay and recovery can be ordered.

9. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in case of S. Iyyapan's case (supra). In the said case, it was held in paras 17 to 19 as under:

"17. Reading the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is evidently clear that in certain circumstances the insurer's right is safeguarded but in any event the insurer has to pay compensation when a valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer can defend the action inter alia on the grounds, namely,

(i) the vehicle was not driven by a named person,

(ii) it was being driven by a person who was not having a duly granted licence, and

(iii) person driving the vehicle was disqualified to hold and obtain a driving licence.

Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there ha