JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant New India Assurance Company Ltd. has preferred the instant civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 against the impugned judgment/Award dated 09.08.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar (for short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No. 219/1998, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,73,400/- has been granted in favour of the claimants/respondents Nos. 1 and 2 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition i.e. 24.08.98 till its actual payment. 2. The main challenge to the impugned Award by the appellant Company is on the ground that the Tribunal failed to consider that prima-facie burden to prove that the offending truck stood insured with the appellant Company lay on the shoulder of the claimants. 3. It is further averred that as per the alleged cover note it was issued from Kohima office of the appellant Company, but in the cross examination AW1 Kunj Bihari Joshi has stated that he cannot say about the genuineness of the cover note which was issued from the Kohima office. The appellant Company also raised several factual as well as legal objections. 4. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the relevant record as also the impugned Award dated 09.08.2002 passed by the Tribunal. I have also considered the objections raised on behalf of the respective parties. 5. It is not disputed that the cover note which was recovered from the custody of the owner of the vehicle by the police may from where has been obtained by the claimants and the same has been produced before the Tribunal. 6. Be that as it may. There may be many lapses but the claim awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants/respondents requires no interference and if the Insurance Company is able to satisfy then only entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle if any breach of policy is there and if it is observed that the policy/cover note of the vehicle is found forged and has not been issued from the Kohima office. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. 7. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan & Ors., reported in AIR 2007 SC 1971 , has held that the award may be satisfied by the appellant but it would be entitled to realise the same from the owner of the tractor and the trolley where for it would not be necessary for it to initiate any separate proceedings for recovery of the amount as provided for under the Motor Vehicles Act. 8. It has been further observed that it is well settled that in a situation of this nature this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Article 136 thereof can issue directions for doing complete justice to the parties. 9. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kusum Rai & Others, (2006) 4 SCC 250 , has observed that "Thus, although we are of the opinion that the appellant was not liable to pay the claimed amount as the driver was not possessing a valid licence and the High Court was in error in holding otherwise, we decline to interfere with the impugned award, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution but we direct that the appellant may recover the amount from the owner in the same manner as was directed in Nanjappan." 10. Having heard rival submissions of the respective parties, upon careful perusal of the impugned Award dated 09.08.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar and looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Insurance Company is directed to make the payment of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal, but the Insurance Company would be entitled to realise the same from the owner of the vehicle as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kusum Rai & Others (supra). 11. With these observations, the civil misc. appeal stands disposed of. 12. The stay application also stands disposed of. 13. Record be sent back forthwith.Appeal disposed of. *******