THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M..A.C.M.A.No.495 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 20.09.2010, in M.V.O.P.No.626 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, wherein the said claim application filed by the respondents 1 to 4 herein, was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.3,37,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. While answering issue No.2, the Tribunal recorded the finding as follows: “Therefore, it is proved by the insurance company that the driver cum owner of the said vehicle had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. So, the terms of insurance policy are clearly violated. So, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the said vehicle. So, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Only, the owner who is the first respondent is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. Only, the owner who is the first respondent is liable to pay compensation payable to the petitioners”. 4. From the above, it is clear that the finding of the Tribunal is to the effect that the insurance company is not at all liable to pay any compensation as the driver-cum- owner of the vehicle had no valid licence at the time of the accident and the terms of the policy are clearly violated. However, in paragraph No.16 of the order, while answering issue No.3, the Tribunal held as follows: “Claim against R2 and R3 is dismissed without costs. Only R1 is liable to pay the said compensation amount with costs and interest to the petitioner and the first respondent is directed to deposit the said amount within one month from the date of this award. Yet, as per the settled law as the vehicle was evidently and admittedly insured with the insurance company, the insurance company has to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners who are third party claimants and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle within one month from the date of this award and they are at liberty to recover the same from the first respondent by filing an execution petition to that effect”. 5. From the above, it can be seen that while reiterating that the 1st respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation and directing to deposit the said amount, the Tribunal, however, further directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners, who are the third party claimants, and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle within one month from the date of the award. There is apparent contradiction in the impugned order, which on one hand dismissed the claim application against the respondents 2 and 3-insurers and on the other hand gave a direction that they shall pay the amount as the vehicle was admittedly insured with the insurance company and the claimants being the third parties. Holding that the insurer is liable to satisfy the claim of the third party under the terms of the policy is one thing and directing the insurance company to pay the amount that they are liable to pay and recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle is quite another. The intention of the Tribunal as to which of the two courses is sought to be adopted is not clear from the findings recorded and directions issued in the impugned order. The impugned order, owing to the apparent contradictions and the findings and directions, does not make the intention of the Tribunal clear and explicit. The same contradictions got carried into the decree also, wherein the claim against the respondents 2 and 3 was held dismissed and at the same time, the insurance company was directed to pay the compensation amount, of course, with a liberty to recover the same. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants, noticing the apparent contradictions in the impugned order on the aspect of fastening liability on the insurer, fairly submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. 7. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. As the claim is of the year, 2008, the Tribunal may endeavour to dispose of the claim application within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. In the result, appeal is disposed of accordingly. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 17th August, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order within one week. B/o Tsy