S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) MAJMUDAR J. These two first appeals are filed under sec. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the appellant-insurance company which feels aggrieved by the two awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Godhra against the Insurance Company in claim petitions Nos. 1 of 1981 and 2 of 1981 respectively. ( 2 ) THESE two petitions alongwith other cognate matters have been disposed of by the Tribunal by a common judgment as all of them out of the same accident. The insurance company has been held liable to make good the claim of the claimants in these claim petitions on the basis that the concerned claimants were travelling in the insured truck as paid passengers alongwith their goods. ( 3 ) THAT takes us to the last contention advanced by Mr. Soparkar in support of the appeals. He submitted that even though the insurance company is made liable to answer the claim of the claimants as per the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act the Tribunal should have given proper declaration in that behalf in favour of the insurance company as per sec. 96 (3) proviso. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention. it is necessary to reproduce the relevant statutory provisions. 96 (3 ). "where a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-sec. (4) of sec. 95 to the person by whom a policy has been effected so much of the policy as purpots to restrict the insurance of the persons insured thereby by reference to any conditions other than those in clause (b) of sub-sec. (2) shall as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-sec. (1)of sec. 95 be of no effect ; provided that any sum paid by the insurer in or towards the discharge of any liability of any person which is covered by the policy by virtue only of this sub- section shall be recoverable by the insurer from that person. "a mere look at the aforesaid provisions shows that once the factual condition as laid down by sec. 96 (3) is established a legal right flows in favour of the insurance company as provided by the proviso. It is not as if that the Tribunal is required to give a declaration in favour of the insurance company to that effect. "a mere look at the aforesaid provisions shows that once the factual condition as laid down by sec. 96 (3) is established a legal right flows in favour of the insurance company as provided by the proviso. It is not as if that the Tribunal is required to give a declaration in favour of the insurance company to that effect. The legal right available to the insurance company under such circumstances is statutorily recognised by the proviso to sec. 96 (3 ). In view of the said statutory declaration as engrafted by the proviso itself no fresh declaration was required to be given by the Tribunal in favour of the insurance company. It is obvious that the claim between the insurance company and the insured as flowing from the proviso to sec. 96 (3) could not have been made the subject matter of award by the Claims Tribunal functioning under sec. 110b of the Act. The only award of the Tribunal which is con- templated by the said provision is against the insured owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident. Any inter-se dispute between the insurance company on the one hand and the insured on the other has to be thrashed out in separate properly instituted legal proceedings before a competent forum. Under these circumstances it is not possi- ble to agree with the submission of Mr. Soparkar that the Tribunal should have given a declaration in favour of the insurance company with respect to the statutory right conferred on the insurance company as per sec. 96 (3) proviso. If the insurance company has such a right it is to be ventilated against the insured in separately Constituted legal proceedings wherein the claimant will have no say and would be out of picture. .