JUDGMENT : T.V. THAMILSELVI, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 12.07.2023 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1085 of 2018 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Special Subordinate Court, Coimbatore. 2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3.The petitioner is the claimant, the first respondent is the driver of the vehicle, the second respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the third respondent is the Insurance Company before the Tribunal. 4.The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 09.04.2018 at 15.30 hrs., when the petitioner was proceeding in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 37 Y 1976 from North to South near Kovai Irugur Devar statue at that time, Eicher lorry bearing Registration No.TN 20 AS 9157 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the petitioner. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained grievous injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to Dr.Muthu Hospital. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.1085 of 2018, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,40,470/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed. 5.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant is not the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 20 AS 9157 belonged to the second respondent herein and he is the owner of the aforesaid vehicle. But the Tribunal fixed the entire liability on the insurance company and erroneously ordered recovery from the appellant. To support his arguments, learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the Inspection Report of Motor Vehicle involved in the accident, revealing that the second respondent herein is the owner of the vehicle and hence, he filed the present appeal for challenging pay and recovery. 6.Learned counsel appearing for the third respondent submitted that the Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence has awarded the compensation which is just and reasonable and no interference is required by this Court. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel for the third respondent and perused the materials available on record. 8.Before the Tribunal, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and on the side of the petitioner, 12 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7.Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned counsel for the third respondent and perused the materials available on record. 8.Before the Tribunal, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and on the side of the petitioner, 12 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12. On the side of the third respondent, Mr.Udaya Sooriyan, Legal Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company, Coimbatore was examined as RW1 and Insurance Policy copy was marked as Ex.R1. 9.On perusal of records, it is seen that the second respondent/driver of the vehicle only possessed driving license but not possessed a batch at the time of the accident. This Court is of the view that the Tribunal erroneously ordered the pay and recovery on the appellant is not sustainable. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, in the inspection report, it was clearly mentioned that the Motor Vehicle involved in the accident belonged to the second respondent herein. Therefore, the third respondent is liable to pay the compensation to the first respondent and recover the same from the second respondent. 10.The judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Special Subordinate Court, Coimbatore in M.C.O.P.No.1085 of 2018 dated 12.07.2023 is modified to the above extent. 11.The third respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the award amount before the Tribunal within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and recover the same from the second respondent. On such deposit being made, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the amount along with accrued interest and proportionate costs, after deducting the amount already withdrawn, if any, on making proper and necessary application before the Tribunal. 12.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is partly allowed with the above terms. No costs.