JUDGMENT: 1. This is an appeal by Insurance Company i.e. the Ori.respondent no.3. 2. The facts giving rise to the appeal can be narrated as follows - 3. The claimants/respondents are the heirs of deceased Dashrath Patle. They were solely dependent on him. Deceased Dashrath was 16 years old boy and was earning Rs.20/- per day by working as Hamal (coolie). On the date of the incident, he was working as a coolie on a Tractor owned by original respondent no.2 Laxman Baghale. The said Tractor was being driven by original respondent no.1 Sahasram. At the material time, the deceased was travelling in the said tractor, which was carrying building material etc. The driver was driving the vehicle very rashly and negligently, as a result of which the Trolly got detached from the Tractor. As a result of that, the Tractor met with an accident. Dashrath suffered injuries of which he died. The claimants, therefore, claimed compensation. 4. Respondent nos.1 and 2 though duly served did not file any written statement. The application was opposed by original respondent no.3 . Insurance Company i.e. the present appellant. The respondent denied that the monthly income of deceased was Rs.600/- per month and the applicants were dependent on him. The main contention of the respondent is that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods vehicle in breach of the conditions of the policy. It is also contended that the policy covers the driver of the Tractor alone and none else and in view of this the Insurance Company is not liable to reimburse the claim. 5. On these pleadings, the learned Tribunal framed issues and found that the deceased had died of rash and negligent driving and all respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.80,000/-. Being aggrieved by that, this appeal has been preferred by the original respondent no.3 . Insurance Company. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant . Insurance Company and the respondents. 7. The only point that was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant was that deceased was a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle and therefore, not covered by the policy and therefore no liability could be fastened on it. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the deceased was travelling as a coolie and therefore not a gratuitous and unauthorised passenger. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the deceased was travelling as a coolie and therefore not a gratuitous and unauthorised passenger. Mr.Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, also submitted that the appellant be allowed to recover the amount from the owner,, since the appellant . Insurance Company is not at all liable since the deceased was the unauthorised passenger in the tractor. 8. Following points, therefore, arise for my consideration and I have recorded my findings. i) Whether the deceased was an authorised passenger in breach of condition of Policy ? .. ... Yes. ii) Whether the Insurance Company can be allowed to recover the compensation paid by it to the claimants from the owner - ori. respondent no.2 ? .. ...... .. Yes. 2. What order ? .. .... As per final order. – R E A S O N S - 9. Mr.Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that deceased should be treated an unauthorised and gratuitous passenger because of the fact that he was travelling in a Tractor which is essentially a goods vehicle and is a person who is not covered by the policy of Insurance. The Policy (Exh.39) shows that driver of the tractor alone is covered by the policy. Since there was no insurance with regard to the coolies, it must follow that the deceased was an authorised passenger travelling in a goods vehicle. He was certainly not a fare paying passenger also. For all purposes, therefore, to my mind, he has to be treated as a gratuitous passenger. 10. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that under the above circumstances the Insurance Company is to be exonerated. In a recent decision, reported in 2007(7)SCC 56 (Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. ..vs.. Brij Mohan and others), the Supreme Court relying on decision in Asha Rani'sn case reported in 2003(2)SCC 233 (New India Assurance Co.Ltd... vs. Asha Rani) held that in such cases the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for claim. The court, however, making use of Article 142 of the Constitution of India directed that the Insurance Company should first satisfy the award and then recover the amount and it would not be necessary for the Insurance Company to initiate separate proceedings for recovery. This is a decision rendered by the two Hon'ble judges of the Supreme Court. The court, however, making use of Article 142 of the Constitution of India directed that the Insurance Company should first satisfy the award and then recover the amount and it would not be necessary for the Insurance Company to initiate separate proceedings for recovery. This is a decision rendered by the two Hon'ble judges of the Supreme Court. But then there is a decision of three judge Bench of Supreme Court, reported in (2004)2 SCC 1 (National Insurance Co.Ltd. ..vs.. Baljit Kaur and ors.), in which it is held as follows - 21. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not thing so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position which shall have prospective effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded in terms of the decision of this Court in Satpal Singh. The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be subserved if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the award amount in favour of the claimant, if not already satisfied, and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. We have issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, in terms whereof, it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner nor driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the Tribunal in such a proceeding.. Thus, the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court has, in fact, laid down a clear Law that the Insurance Company would first satisfy the award and then recover the amount from the owner by filing an execution application before the court and the Insurance Company will not be required to file a separate suit. In view of this, it is clear that although Insurance Company is not liable to the suit claim, all the same, it has to first satisfy the suit claim and recover that amount from the owner or holder of a policy of Insurance. In view of this, the appeal must partly succeed. The order directing the respondents no.1 to 3 in claim petition to pay Rs.80,000/- with 12 per cent interest and costs is confirmed. In addition, it is directed that the Insurance Company i.e. original respondent no.3 shall be entitled to recover decretal amount, interest and costs as paid by it to the claimants from respondent no.2 Laxman Chunnilal Baghale. Respondent no.2, in this appeal i.e. Laxman Chunnilal Baghale shall pay costs of this appeal as well as the costs before the Tribunal to the claimants as well as the appellant/Insurance Company.