1. This appeal was preferred by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the M.A.C. Tribunal, Kasargode in O.P. (M.V.) No. 166 of 1996.

2. Claim petition was preferred by respondents 1 and 2 herein claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for the injuries sustained by the first respondent. Compensation was claimed against the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. Driver and the insurer entered appearance and resisted the petition. Owner remained ex parte. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 53,500/- with 11% interest. Aggrieved by the same Insurance Company has preferred this appeal.

3. Counsel for the Insurance Company placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Govindankutty Nair v. Gopalakrishnan (2000 (1) KLT 224) and contended that in the instant case since the driver was not having a licence to drive autorickshaw the Insurance Company be exonerated from the liability. He also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Narayanan (2001 (2) KLT 714). We also find Exts. B1 and B2 would show that driver of the autorickshaw was not duly licensed to drive the autorickshaw. We are of the view, the principle laid down in the aforesaid decisions would squarely apply to the facts of this case as well. Consequently this appeal has to be allowed. We do so. It is open to the claimants to proceed against the driver and owner of the vehicle and recover the amount accordingly.