JUDGMENT P.K. Jaiswal, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the award dated 1st October, 2008 passed by 15th Additional Member Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 218 of 2007, whereby the claim petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 was allowed and the compensation of Rs. 7,25,372 was awarded on account of the injuries received to him. 2. The Claims Tribunal has taken the view that Appellant- Insurance Company has no liability to pay the amount in question despite this, the Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. This appeal is preferred by the Insurance Company against a direction to pay and recover. 3. Short facts involved herein are that the Respondent No. 1-Claimant was travelling in jeep which was not used for domestic purpose of owner of the vehicle. On 15th October, 2006, the jeep was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of policy. Jeep was requisitioned by the Respondent No. 3-State by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Pawai through the Collector Panna for legal literacy camp, when it met with accident. It is not in dispute that jeep was insured for private purpose. The jeep in question was requisitioned at the instance of Collector. The said vehicle was in possession as also under the control of the State Officer. On 15th October, 2006, number of judicial officers travelling in the said vehicle, an accident occurred as a result whereof the Respondent No. 1, named L.K. Bhargav sustained injuries. 4. Respondent No. 1 filed an application for compensation in terms of Section 166 of the 1988 Act. The State 6f Madhya Pradesh was impleaded therein. The Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in its award dated 1st October, 2008, upheld the contention of the Insurance Company that under the terms of the insurance policy the insurer has no liability to pay compensation on account of the said accident, but directed to pay and recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 5. Shri R.J. Pandit, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the issue involved in this appeal squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Deepa Devi and Others, 2008 A.C.J. 705 : 2008 (1) T.A.C. 214. 5. Shri R.J. Pandit, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant-Insurance Company submitted that the issue involved in this appeal squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Deepa Devi and Others, 2008 A.C.J. 705 : 2008 (1) T.A.C. 214. Para 10 and 18 are relevant which reads as under: 10. Parliament either under the 1939 Act or the 1988 Act did not take into consideration a situation of this nature. No doubt, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 continued to be the registered owner of the vehicle despite the fact that same requisitioned by the District Magistrate in exercise of its power conferred upon it under the Representation of People Act. A vehicle is requisitioned by a statutory authority, pursuant to the provisions contained in a statute. The owner of the vehicle cannot refuse to abide by the order of requisition of vehicle of the Deputy Commissioner. While the vehicle remains under requisition, the owner does not exercise any control thereover. The driver may still be the employee of the owner of the vehicle but he has to drive it as per the direction of the officer of the State, who is put in-., charge thereof. Save and except for legal ownership, for all intent and purport, registered owner of the vehicle loses entire control thereover. He has no say as to whether the vehicle should be driven at a given point of time or not. He cannot ask the driver not to drive a vehicle on a bad road. He or the driver could not possibly say that the vehicle would not be driven in a night. The purpose of requisition is to use the vehicle. For the period the vehicle remains under the control of the State and/or its officer, the owner is only entitled to payment of compensation therefor in terms of the Act but he cannot exercise any control thereupon. In a situation of this nature, this Court must proceed on the presumption that Parliament while enacting the 1988 Act did not envisage such a situation. If in a given situation, the statutory definitions contained in the 1988 Act cannot be given effect to in the letter and spirit, the same should be understood from the common sense point of view. 18. If in a given situation, the statutory definitions contained in the 1988 Act cannot be given effect to in the letter and spirit, the same should be understood from the common sense point of view. 18. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the State shall be liable to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and not the registered owner of the vehicle and consequently the Appellant herein. 6. Shri R.J. Pandit, Learned Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company submitted that any of Sections 147 and 149 of the Act is specific and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation when there is breach of the conditions of the policy. 7. Shri G.K. Neema and Shri Surendra Gupta, Learned Counsel for the Claimants and owner of the vehicle submitted that the provisions of Sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicless Act are clear and specific Insurance Company is bound by the statute to pay the compensation to the victim. They further drew my attention in the case of Jugal Kishore and Another vs. Ramlesh Devi and Others, 2004 (1) JLJ 110 , wherein, it has been held the insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued, shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, in any breach of policy conditions. If the vehicle is used for the purpose other than for which it is insured then the conditiona mentioned in Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicless Act, the Insurance Company is liable to pay indemnify the victim and will be entitled to recover the amount from the insured pointing out the breach of the conditions of policy. 8. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvathneni and Another, MACD 2009 (S.C.) 552 : 2009 (4) T.A.C. 382, it was held by the Apex Court that the Insurance Company has no liability to pay compensation to the claimant nor the Insurance Company can be compelled to make payment and later on recover it from owner of the vehicle. Ltd. vs. Parvathneni and Another, MACD 2009 (S.C.) 552 : 2009 (4) T.A.C. 382, it was held by the Apex Court that the Insurance Company has no liability to pay compensation to the claimant nor the Insurance Company can be compelled to make payment and later on recover it from owner of the vehicle. In the case of Meera Hurmade vs. Shri Ram and Others, 2006 A.C.J. 2112 the Division Bench of this Court has held that the driver, insurer and owner are liable to make the compensation it would be open to the insurer to recover it from insured in accordance with law. 9. Here in the present case, as per the Statement of A.W. 1 and R.K. Tiwari (A.W.4) Sub-Divisional Magistrate Pawai, it is not in dispute that the vehicle was requisitioned by the Collector Sub-Divisional Magistrate Collector Panna for legal literacy camp. The owner of the vehicle cannot refused to abide by the order of requisition of the Collector. While the vehicle remains under requisition, the owner does not exercise any control thereover. As per para 17 of the impugned award the learned Tribunal directed the Appellant to deposit the amount of compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and State of Madhya Pradesh. Thus, the money will be recovered by the insurer on his certificate issued by the Tribunal to the Collector under Section of the Act as arrears of land revenue by filing-art application for execution. Applying the principle laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Jugal Kishore and Another (Supra). This Court is of the view that learned Tribunal has not committed any illegality in directing the Insurance Company to pay to the claimants the amount of compensation and recover the same from insured and State of Madhya Pradesh. 10. For the above mentioned reasons I do not find that Tribunal has committed any illegality. Appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.