JUDGMENT S.P. MEHROTRA and RAJESH CHANDRA, JJ.-The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and order/award dated 14.7.2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Allahabad in Motor Accident Case No. 510 of 2004, filed by the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on account of the death of Manoj Kumar Srivastava in an accident on 5.7.2004 at about 5 O'clock in the evening. It was, inter alia, stated in the claim petition that the said Manoj Kumar Srivastava was going on his motorcycle from Allahabad to Phoolpur on 5.7.2004 at about 5.00 p.m.; and that a truck bearing Registration No. U.P.-84-9967, which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, hit the motorcycle of the said Manoj Kumar Srivastava on Katka-Allahabad Road under Jhusi Police Station, Allahabad, as a result of which Manoj Kumar Srivastava sustained serious injuries, and he died on account of the said injuries. 2. It was, inter alia, further stated in the claim petition that at the time of the accident, the said Manoj Kumar Srivastava was aged about 32 years and was employed on the post of Urea Operator in I.F.F.C.O., Phoolpur, Allahabad. The claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 1,60,00,000 under fault liability under section 168 of the Motor, Vehicles Act, 1988 and Rs. 50,000 under no-fault liability under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Interest @ 12% per annum was also claimed on the said amounts from the date of the accident, namely, 5.7.2004 till the actual date of payment. The claim petition was contested by the appellant-Insurance Company as well as the respondent No.3, i.e., the owners of the aforesaid truck in question, namely, truck No. U.P.-84-9967. 3. To their written statement, the owners of the truck in question (i.e., respondent No.3) denied the averments made in the claim petition, and asserted that the truck in question was not involved in any accident. It was further asserted by the owners of the truck in question (i.e., respondent No.3) that the driver of the truck in question was driving the truck carefully and at controlled speed, and he was having a valid and effective driving licence; and that the truck in question was insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company at the time of the accident. 4. 4. The appellant-Insurance Company in its written statement denied the averments made in the claim petition, and further asserted that no accident on the date, place and time, as alleged in the claim petition, had taken place by the truck in question; and that in case any accident took place, the same was the result of the own rashness, negligence and wrongful act of the said Manoj Kumar Srivastava. It was, inter alia, further asserted by the Appellant-Insurance Company that for holding the Appellant Insurance Company liable, it was necessary to prove that on the date of the accident, the driver of the truck in question was holding valid and effective driving licence to drive that class of vehicle, i.e., the driving licence for H.G.V. (P.E.), and that the truck in question was validly insured with the Appellant-Insurance Company, and that the policy of the insurance was operative and effective at the time of the said accident and was having coverage regarding risk towards the said deceased, and that all requisite documents of the truck in question for its use at public place were up-to-date valid. It was, inter alia, further asserted by the Appellant-Insurance Company that the truck in question at the time of the said accident was not driven by a duly licenced driver authorized to drive truck; and that the owners of the truck in question violated the conditions of the Insurance Policy; and that the Appellant-Insurance Company was not liable in the present case. 5. The Tribunal framed 4 issues in the case. Issue No.1 was regarding the factum of the accident having taken place on 5.7.2004 on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the aforesaid truck in question thereby hitting the said Manoj Kumar Srivastava as a result of which the said Manoj Kumar Srivastava sustained injuries and consequently died. Issue No.2 was as to whether at the time of the accident the truck in question was being driven by a driver having valid and effective licence. Issue No.3 was as to whether the truck in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company at the time of the accident, and its effect. Issue No.4 was as to whether the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to get any compensation, and if yes, quantum of such compensation and against which opposite party in the claim petition. Issue No.3 was as to whether the truck in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company at the time of the accident, and its effect. Issue No.4 was as to whether the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were entitled to get any compensation, and if yes, quantum of such compensation and against which opposite party in the claim petition. The parties filed documentary evidence in support of their respective cases. As regards oral evidence, the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 examined four witnesses. No witness was examined on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company or the respondent No.3. As regards issue No.1, the Tribunal decided the said issue in the affirmative in favour of the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and against the appellant-Insurance Company and the respondent No.3. As regards issue No.2, the Tribunal held that while all other papers in regard to the truck in question were valid at the time of the accident, the driver of the truck in question was not having a valid and effective licence at the time of the accident. Issue No.2 was accordingly decided in the negative as against the respondent No.3. As regards issue No.3, the Tribunal held that the truck in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company for the period 31.1.2004 to 30.1.2006, and thus, on the date and time of the accident, the truck in question was insured with the appellant-Insurance Company. Issue No.3 was accordingly decided in favour of the respondent No.3 (i.e., the owners of the truck in question) and against the appellant-Insurance Company. 6. As regards issue No.4, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.19,23,160 with simple interest @ 6% per annum from the date of settlement of the issues i.e., 12.4.2005 to the date of actual payment. However, the Tribunal held that as the driver of the truck in question was not having a valid and effective licence, the truck in question was being driven against the conditions of the insurance policy. As such, it was just and proper that the appellant Insurance Company would deposit the amount of compensation alongwith interest and would then recover the same from the owners of the truck in question (respondent No.3) on account of the truck in question being driven in violation of the conditions of the Insurance Policy. As such, it was just and proper that the appellant Insurance Company would deposit the amount of compensation alongwith interest and would then recover the same from the owners of the truck in question (respondent No.3) on account of the truck in question being driven in violation of the conditions of the Insurance Policy. Accordingly, the Tribunal gave right of recovery to the appellant-Insurance Company as against the owners of the truck in question (respondent No.3 herein) after depositing the entire amount of compensation with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 7. We have heard Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, and perused the record filed with the appeal. 8. Sri Saurabh Srivastava, learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that having held that the aforesaid truck in question was being run against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, the Tribunal erred in directing the appellant-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same from the owners of the truck in question, i.e., respondent No.3 herein. Sri Saurabh Srivastava submits that in any case, the interest of the appellant-Insurance Company as against the owners of the truck in question (respondent No.3 herein) should have been properly secured so that after making the payment of compensation under the impugned award, the appellant-Insurance Company would be able to recover the same from the owners of the aforesaid truck in question. Sri Saurabh Srivastava has relied upon the following decisions in this regard : 1. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sri Nanjappan and others1 2004 (54) ALR 707 (SC) = 2004 (15) AIC 1 (SC) = 2004 (2) TAC 12 (SC). 2. National Insurance Company v. Challa Bharathamma 2 2004 (57) ALR 284 (SC) = 2004 (22) AIC 78 = 2005 (1) TAC 4 (SC). We have considered the submissions made by Sri Saurabh Srivastava,. learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. As regards the submission made by Sri Saurabh Srivastava that the Tribunal erred in directing the Insurance Company to make the payment of compensation and thereafter recover the same from the owners of the truck in question, it is pertinent to refer to the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 9. Sub-section (5) of section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 lays down asunder-: "147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.-(1) to (4).............. . 9. Sub-section (5) of section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 lays down asunder-: "147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.-(1) to (4).............. . (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons." The above-quoted provision thus provides that an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under section 147 of the said Act, shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons. Sub-section (1) of section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides as follows : "149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.-(1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) (or under the provisions of section 163-A) is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment-debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. (2) to (7)................" 10. (2) to (7)................" 10. The above-quoted provision thus provides that in case any judgment or award is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then the insurer shall pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and interest. This will be so even though the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy. In view of the above provisions, we are of the opinion that the directions given by the Tribunal requiring the appellant-Insurance Company to make the deposit of compensation awarded under the impugned award and thereafter recover the same from the owners of the aforesaid truck in question, is in accordance with law, and the same does not suffer from any infirmity. The above conclusion is supported by 'various decisions of the Apex Court: 1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur and others 1 AIR 1998 SC 588 . 2. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh 2 2004 (3) SCC 297 =2004(1) TAC 321= AIR 2004 SC 1531 . 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut 3 (2007) 3 SCC 700 =2007 (2) TAC 398=2007 (56) AIC 10 (Sum.). 4. Prem Kumari and others v. Prahlad Dev and others 4 2008 (71) ALR 312 (SC)=2008 (64) AIC 159=2008 (1) TAC 803 (SC). 11. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur and others 5 AIR 1998 SC 588 ., their Lordships of the Supreme Court opined as under (paragraph 7 of the said AIR) : 7. We have, therefore, this position. Despite the bar created by section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, the appellant, an authorised insurer, issued a policy of insurance to cover the bus without receiving the premium therefor. By reason of the provisions of sections 147 (5) and 149 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant became liable to indemnify third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered and to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof notwithstanding its entitlement. By reason of the provisions of sections 147 (5) and 149 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant became liable to indemnify third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered and to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof notwithstanding its entitlement. (upon which we do not express any opinion) to avoid or cancel the policy for the reason that the cheque issued in payment of the premium thereon had not been honoured." (Emphasis supplied) This decision thus supports the conclusion mentioned above on the basis of sections 147 (5) and 149 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh 6 2004 (3) SCC 297 =2004 (1) TAC 321= AIR 2004 SC 1531 ., their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as follows (paragraph 105 of the said A.I.R.) : "105. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third-party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under section 163-A or section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia, in terms of section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained. in sub-section (2) (a) (ii) of section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. in sub-section (2) (a) (ii) of section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) Insurance companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicles ; the burden of proof where for would be on them. (v) The Court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply "the rule of main purpose" and the concept of "fundamental breach" to allow defences available to the insurer under section 149 (2) of the Act. (vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfill the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. (viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. (viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. (ix) The Claims Tribunal constituted under section 165 read with section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the Tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between the insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the Tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of sections 149 (2) read with sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under section 174 of the Act as arrears as land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement 'Of the award by the Tribunal. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement 'Of the award by the Tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in sub-section (4) with the proviso thereunder and sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse to by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of the insurer against the insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular Court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims." (Emphasis supplied) 12. Proposition Nos. (vi) and (x), reproduced above support the conclusion that the direction given by the Tribunal in the award impugned in the present case is in accordance with law. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut 1 2007 (2) TAC 398 (SC) = 2007 (56) AIC 10 (Sum.)., their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (supra) and held as under (paragraph 35 of the said T.A.C.) : "35. As noted above, the conceptual difference between third party right and own damage cases has to be kept in view. Initially, the burden is on the insurer to prove that the licence was a fake one. Once it is established the natural consequences have to flow. In view of the above analysis the following situations emerge: (1) The decision in Swaran Singh's case (supra) has no application to cases other than third party risks. (2) Where originally the licence was fake one, renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality. (3) In case of third party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised to recover the same from the insured. (4) The concept of purposive interpretation has no application to cases relatable to section 149 of the Act. The High Courts/Commissions shall now consider the matter afresh in the light of the position in law as delineated above. (4) The concept of purposive interpretation has no application to cases relatable to section 149 of the Act. The High Courts/Commissions shall now consider the matter afresh in the light of the position in law as delineated above. The appeals are allowed as aforesaid with no order as to costs." (Emphasis supplied) In view of the above decision, it is evident that in case of third party risks, the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Swnran Singh and others (supra) would apply, and the insurer has to indemnify the amount .0 the third party and thereafter may recover the same from the insured. 13. In Prem Kumari and others v. Prahlad Dev and others 2 2008 (71) ALR 312 (SC) = 2008 (64) AIC 159=2008 (1) TAC 803 (SC)., their Lordships of the Supreme Court have reiterated the view expressed in National Insurance Company Limited. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut's case (supra) explaining the decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and others (supra), and held as under (paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said TAC) : "8. The effect and implication of the principles laid down in Swaran Singh's case (supra) has been considered and explained by one of us (Dr.Justice Arijit Pasayat) in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut 1 (2007) 3 SCC 700 =2007 (2) TAC 398 (SC)=2007 (56) AIC 10 (Sum.). The following conclusion in para 38 are relevant: "38. In view of the above analysis the following situations emerge: (1) The decision in Swaran Singh's case (supra) has no application to cases other than third party risks. (2) Where originally the licence was a fake one, renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality. (3) In case of third-party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount, and if so advised, to recover the same from the insured. (4) The concept of purposive interpretation has no application to cases relatable to section 149 of the Act. 9. In the subsequent decision in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and others 2 (2007) 5 SCC 428 =2007 (2) TAC 417., which is also a two Judge Bench while considering the ratio laid down in Swaran Singh's case (supra) concluded that in a case where a person is not a third party within the meaning of the Act, the Insurance Company cannot be made automatically liable merely by resorting to Swaran Singh's case (supra). While arriving at such a conclusion the Court extracted the analysis as mentioned in para 38 of Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra) and agreed with the same. In view of consistency, we reiterate the very same principle enunciated in Laxmi Narain Dhut (supra) with regard to interpretation and applicability of Swaran Singh's case (supra)." (emphasis supplied) 14. In view of the above decisions, it is evident that the directions given by the Tribunal requiring the appellant-Insurance Company to deposit the amount awarded under the impugned award in the first instance, and thereafter, recover the same from the owners of the truck in question, are valid and legal. As regards the submission made by Sri Saurabh Srivastava that the interest of the appellant-Insurance Company should be protected as against the owners of the truck in question (respondent No.3 herein) so that in case the appellant-Insurance Company deposits the amount of compensation, it may be able to recover the same from the owners of the aforesaid truck in question, it is pertinent to refer to the decisions relied upon by Saurabh Srivastava. In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Sri Nanjappan and others 3 2004 (54) ALR 704 (SC)=2004 (15) AIC 1 (SC)=2004 (2) TAC 12 (SC)., (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court opined as under (Paragraph 7 of the said T.A.C.) : "7. Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaurs case 4 2004 (1) TAC 366 (SC)., (supra) that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised to the respondents-claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned 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.: Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the• entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the Executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport Authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing Court to direct realisation by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs." (emphasis supplied) 15. In National Insurance Company v. Challa Bharathamma 1 2004 (57) ALR 284 (SC)=2004 (22) AIC 78=2005 (1) TAC 4 (SC)., (supra), it was laid down as follows (Paragraph 13 of the said T.A.C.) : "The residual question is what would be the appropriate direction. Considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the in. surer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. In some cases the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. For the purpose of recovering the amount paid from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned 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. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the offending vehicle shall furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport Authority. The executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing Court to direct realisation by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, i.e., the insured. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing Court to direct realisation by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, i.e., the insured. In the instant case considering the quantum involved we leave it to the discretion of the insurer to decide whether it would take steps for recovery of the amount from the insured." (emphasis supplied) 16. In our opinion, the directions contemplated in the above decisions may be sought by the appellant-Insurance Company before the executing Court when the appellant-Insurance Company, after depositing the amount awarded under the impugned award, moves appropriate application before the executing Court to recover the said amount from the Insured person, i.e., the owners of the vehicle in question (respondent No. 3 herein), while the claimants file an application for the execution of the award or for the release of the amount deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company. We are re raining from expressing any opinion in this regard. We may, however, refer to two decisions of this Court wherein the above decisions of the Supreme Court have been considered. In Smt. Bhuri and others v. Smt. Shobha Rani and others 1 2006 (65) ALR 5=2007 (1) TAC 20 (All)., a learned Single Judge of this Court held as under (Paragraph 5 of the said T.A.C.) : "5. From the aforesaid case law, as referred to by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be evident that in spite of the fact that the insurer is not made liable to compensate the claimants under the policy under section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, still the liability of payment, under the law as developed by the Apex Court in this context, has been assigned to the Insurance Company. At the same time, the Insurance Company has also been given liberty to recover the said amount from the insured within the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act itself and without taking the burden of filing a suit for that purpose. This principle of law was initially propounded in Baljit Kaur's case (supra) and it has been followed in the aforesaid cases referred to by the parties concerned. This principle of law was initially propounded in Baljit Kaur's case (supra) and it has been followed in the aforesaid cases referred to by the parties concerned. But in the subsequent cases more especially in Nanjappan's case (supra) it has also been observed that before releasing the amount under deposit before the Court the insured/owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the Insurance Company will pay to the claimants. After that notice the Court may direct the attachment of the offending vehicle as part of the security and could also pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In case of default it shall be open to the Court to direct realisation of the amount from the insured/owner by disposal of security or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, all these modes have been provided by the Apex Court for the insurer to make recovery from the insured. But from all these directions as given by the Apex Court, the purport is that the Court shall not undermine the interest of the claimants for whose we/fare the Supreme Court has been developing this law through all these cases even by interpreting otherwise the liability of the insurer with section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Thus, what is the crux of the matter in the present case is that the revisionists-claimants cannot be made to suffer even if the insured/owner of tile vehicle does not furnish security or does not appear before the Court in pursuance to the notice issued to him. The burden of recovering the amount within the provisions of the Act itself has been placed upon the insurer in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court. The claimants who have obtained the award in their favour have not been made to suffer through any observation made by the Supreme Court in these cases. Thus, in the aforesaid view of the matter, what I feel is that it would be just and proper if the Court below is directed to first take resort to the issuance of notice to the insured/owner of the vehicle and thereafter only the money under deposit before the Court should be released in favour of the claimants." (emphasis supplied) 17. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Khursheeda Bano and others 2 2009 (1) AWC 355 =2008 (73) ALR S66 (All)., a Division Bench of this Court laid down as follows (Paragraph 4 of the said A.W.C.) : "4. Learned Counsel has cited the judgment of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others 3 2004 (57) ALR 284 (SC)=2004 (22) AIC 78= (2004) 8 SCC 517 ., to establish that the claim of the Insurance Company should be secured by the owner. We have no quarrel with such proposition. What we want to say is that unless and until an appropriate application in the selfsame proceeding is made by the Insurance Company for the purpose of recovery, the question of furnishing security by the owner cannot arise. Such situation is yet to ripe. At this stage, we are only concerned with the payment of compensation to the claimants which cannot be stalled and has got nothing to do with the dispute regarding liability between the owner and the Insurance Company. The sufferer is a third party. Moreover, in such judgment, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court has categorically held considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability." In effect it is a stop-gap arrangement to satisfy the award as soon as it is passed. The judgment of 3 Judges' Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran Singh and others 1 (2004) 3 SCC 297 , also speaks in para 110 that the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursement by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the Tribunal. Therefore, the intention of the Legislature as well as the interpretation by the Supreme Court and different High Courts is well-settled to the extent that under no circumstances payment of compensation to the claimants will be stalled. Even at the cost of the repetition we say, it has nothing to do with the dispute with regard to liability of owner or insurer, which can be considered in the separate application in the selfsame cause or in an execution application in connection thereto to be initiated by the Insurance Company. Even at the cost of the repetition we say, it has nothing to do with the dispute with regard to liability of owner or insurer, which can be considered in the separate application in the selfsame cause or in an execution application in connection thereto to be initiated by the Insurance Company. " (emphasis supplied) 18. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal did not commit any illegality in directing the appellant-Insurance Company to make deposit of the amount of compensation, and recover the same from the insured person, i.e., the owners of the vehicle in question-respondent No.3 herein. After making deposit of the amount awarded under the impugned award, it will be open to the appellant-Insurance Company to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of the amount from the owners of the aforesaid truck in question (respondent No.3 herein), and seek appropriate directions in such proceedings. It is made clear that in case any appeal is filed by the claimant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 or by the owners of the aforesaid truck in question (respondent No.3 herein), it will be open to the appellant-Insurance Company to contest the same on the grounds legally open to the appellant-Insurance Company. The amount of Rs. 25,000 deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company while filing the present appeal, will be remitted to the Tribunal for being adjusted towards the amount to be deposited by the appellant-Insurance Company, as per the directions given in the impugned award. Subject to the above observations, the appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company is dismissed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal Dismissed.