JUDGMENT S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. In both the appeals common question has been raised as to whether the insurer can be asked to pay the entire liability both of the insurer and insured, at first instance, and then to recover the amount, excess to its liability, from the insured or not. As such, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. For determination of the aforesaid issue, it is not necessary to discuss all the facts, except the relevant one of both the cases, as mentioned hereunder: In L.P.A. No. 36 of 1998(R), the second respondent Deepak Kumar is the claimant. On 8th February, 1989, while he was travelling in a maxi-taxi, being Registration No. BEN-9653 from Kuru to Ranchi, the vehicle met with an accident, being driven rashly and negligently, as a result of which several passengers, including the claimant, received injuries. One person died at the spot and some other persons also died in the hospital. 3. The claimant-Deepak Kumar was treated in a hospital and after recovery, filed Compensation Case No. 38/13 of 1989/91, claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhand fifty thousand). Both the insurer and insured appeared but the case was contested only by the insurer-appellant. 4. The learned Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi, on appreciation of evidence and materials on record, allowed the claim to the tune of Rs. 85,000/- (Rupees eighty five thousand), against the insurer without any liability against the insured. 5. The insurer challenged the award before this Court in Misc. Appeal No. 584 of 1991(R). The learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 18th December, 1997 taking into consideration the provisions under Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 while accepted that the statutory limit, prescribed by the Statute per passenger is Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) held that the Tribunal erred in holding the liability of the insurer unlimited. Taking into consideration the injury of the claimant, his suffering of mental agony and pain, the learned Single Judge did not choose to vary the quantum of Rs. 85,000/-(Rupees eighty five thousand), fixed by the Tribunal, but fixed the liability on both the insurer and insured to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) and 70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) respectively. 85,000/-(Rupees eighty five thousand), fixed by the Tribunal, but fixed the liability on both the insurer and insured to the extent of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) and 70,000/- (Rupees seventy thousand) respectively. At the same time, learned Single Judge directed the insurer to pay the total amount of Rs. 85,000/- (Rupees eighty five thousand) to the claimant at first instance and, thereafter, to take resort to Sub-section (4) of Section 96 of the Act for recovery of the amount, payable by the insured. 6. In L.P.A. No. 65 of 1998(R), the heirs of (deceased) Banshi Poddar, respondent Nos. 1 to 3, are the claimants. Their case was that on 13th January, 1986, at about 9.00 a.m. while deceased was going to his home by bus, bearing Registration No. BRW 7432, there being no accommodation inside, he was asked by the Khalasi to sit on the roof-top. The bus dashed against a telephone pole because of rash and negligent driving, the deceased fell down on the ground and having sustained severe injuries, was taken to Sadar Hospital, Hazaribagh, where he was declared dead. 7. A claim case filed by the widow of the deceased was registered as Misc. Claim Case No. 83 of 1986. Therein the learned Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh, vide its judgment dated 21st May, 1992/Award dated 1st June, 1992, allowed a sum of Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventyfive thousand) together with the interest at the rate of 12% per annum in favour of claimant with a direction to the insurer to deposit the amount through cross cheque /bank draft in the name of claimant-widow Maya Devi. The insurer, being not satisfied with the judgment and award, passed by the learned Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh, preferred Misc. Appeal No. 105 of 1992(R) before this Court, which was heard by the learned Single Judge, who vide the impugned judgment dated 20th January, 1998, taking into consideration the provisions of Section 95(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, held that the insurer is liable to pay Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) and the balance amount is payable by the insured. However, the insurer was directed to pay the entire compensation amount, as was ordered by the Tribunal, together with interest from the date of application, with liberty to realize the amount payable by the insured under Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 8. The submission of Mr. However, the insurer was directed to pay the entire compensation amount, as was ordered by the Tribunal, together with interest from the date of application, with liberty to realize the amount payable by the insured under Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. 8. The submission of Mr. D.C Ghose, Counsel for the insurer-appellants (in both the appeals) is that in a case where there is joint liability to pay the compensation amount, part by insurer and rest by the insured, the third party- claimant cannot ask for recovery of total compensation amount from the insurer, leaving it on the insurer to recover any excess from the insured, nor such direction can be given by the Court, as directed in the cases in hand. Reliance was also placed on a decision of the Full Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Celine reported in I (1993) ACC 445 (FB). In the aforesaid case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Celine (supra), the Full Bench of Kerala High Court noticed the Privy Council decision in Free Lanks Insurance Co. Ltd. v. A.E. Ranasinghe (1964) AC 541 (PC), as also a Full Bench decision of Kerala High Court in M.F.A. No. 298 of 1987, wherein same issue earlier fell for consideration before the said Full Bench. In the said appeal the insurer contended that the Tribunal was wrong in making the insurer liable for the entire amount including the liability of the insured, its liability should have been limited as per Section 95(2) of the Act. The contention of the claimants was that the insurer should pay the entire amount at first instance and may recover the difference from the insured under Section 96(4) of the Act, which was rejected by the Full Bench. The Court held that in a case where the policy was not avoided and the insurer paid the actual amount as per Section 95(2) of the Act with interest and cost to the third party, the insurer can recover from the insured the interest and cost, being the sum not payable by it. The Court held that in a case where the policy was not avoided and the insurer paid the actual amount as per Section 95(2) of the Act with interest and cost to the third party, the insurer can recover from the insured the interest and cost, being the sum not payable by it. In the concluding portion, the Full Bench took into consideration the practice in our country that the Nationalised Insurance Companies have been paying directly to the third party, the amount up to the limit covered by the extra premium, even though the limit under Section 95(2) may be less. So the Full Bench did not choose to disturb the existing procedure. 9. The provision of Section 96 of the Act recently fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Cheruvakkara Naffeessu as reported in I (2001) ACC 335 (SC) : 2001 (1) Jhr. C.R. 186 (SC). That was a case in which the issue was raised as to what is the extent of liability of an Insurance Company towards the third party under Section 95(l)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, and insurers right in case of payment of an amount in excess of the limits of the liability vis-a-vis the insured. The Supreme Court held that though liability of Insurance Company is limited to a particular extent in motor accident claims but insurer is liable to pay entire claim awarded by the Tribunal and can recover the excess amount from the insured under or by virtue of the provisions of Section 96 of the Act. 10. It is not in dispute that the provisions relating to payment of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is a beneficial legislation, either paid to the family members of a deceased or the person injured, who suffers from mental shock and pain. It is required to be paid to the claimant as early as possible, without giving rise to multiple litigations. As in most of the cases, it becomes difficult for a claimant to get the award executed against the insured, the Court takes resort to the provisions of Section 96 of the Act by directing the insurer to pay the total compensation amount to the claimant and then to recover the amount from the insured to the extent of its liability. 11. 11. Such being the practice, I find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgments. 12. Both the appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.