ORDER Fakhruddin, J. 1. All the aforesaid appeals arise out of an order exonerating the Insurance Company from paying interim compensation under no fault liability and the owner of the offending vehicle alone has been held liable to pay the compensation by the impugned orders which are under challenge in these appeals, praying for saddling the liability on the Insurance Company. 2. Learned Counsel for respondent No. 3-Insurance Company submitted that they did not oppose the prayer of the claimants before the Tribunal, but the Tribunal applying its own mind, relying upon the decision passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 11989-11994 of 98, decided on 22nd July, 1998, in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Jothu Ram and Ors. has held that the Insurance Company is not liable. Counsel representing the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company stated that there is no dispute regarding insurance of the offending vehicle and the Company has admitted that. Copy of the aforesaid decision of the pex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd.'s case (supra), has been placed on the record of Misc. Appeal No. 180/99. It appears that the Claims Tribunal has misread and misinterpreted the judgment of the Apex Court. The Apex Court after appreciating the contentions and the provisions of Sections 92-A and 92-B of the Act, in the aforesaid case, held that: On a close scrutiny of the aforesaid provisions, we do not find anything contained therein which would suggest that the liability which accrues under the provisions of Section 92-A has to be borne by the insurer even if it is ultimately held that under the policy of insurance the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation in question. In our considered opinion the Tribunal and the High Court have misread the aforesaid provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the aforesaid premises, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal and the High Court cannot be sustained so far as it relates to the liability of the insurer arising under Sections 92-A and 92-B of the Act. 3. It is noted that under the provisions of Section 140 of the M.V. Act, the primary responsibility to pay the compensation is of the owner in certain cases on the principle of no fault where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles. 3. It is noted that under the provisions of Section 140 of the M.V. Act, the primary responsibility to pay the compensation is of the owner in certain cases on the principle of no fault where death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident arising out of the use of a motor vehicle or motor vehicles. It is only under Section 149 of the M.V. Act that the duty of the insurers to satisfy judgment and awards against person/persons insured in respect of third party risk is enacted. Under the provisions of Section 140, the owner/owners are jointly or severally, as the case may be, held liable to pay compensation in respect of such death or disablement in accordance with the provisions and the insurer is held liable in case the vehicle is insured, under Section 149 of the Act. In case if ultimately it is held that the Insurance Company is not liable under the policy of the insurance, to pay the compensation, the insurer having paid the amount under the provisions is entitled to get it reimbursed from the owner. 4. In this case, it is not in dispute that the vehicle is insured by the Insurance Company and where the vehicle is insured the insurer cannot be exonerated from liability to pay compensation. Learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3-Insurance Company fairly submitted before this Court that they have not opposed the prayer of the claimants yet the Tribunal on its own reading the judgment of the Apex Court, referred to above, passed the impugned order. In the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal totally misread the judgment. The Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. v. Jothu Ram (supra), held that if under the policy of the insurance, the insurer has no liability to pay the compensation, the insurer cannot be held liable to pay. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company yet the Insurance Company has been exonerated under misconception of law. 5. In view of what has been stated above, in the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Claims Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company is not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. 5. In view of what has been stated above, in the opinion of this Court, the order passed by the Claims Tribunal exonerating the Insurance Company is not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, it is set aside and it is directed that the amount of compensation shall be paid by the Owner and the Insurance Company both jointly or severally within a period of fifteen days from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order. 6. A copy of this order be also sent to the Claims Tribunal, Gwalior through the District Judge, Gwalior. 7. There shall be no order as to costs.