JUDGMENT 1. - After dismissal of the first stay application for non-prosecution, an application was filed under Section 151, C.P.C. by the appellant Insurance company to recall order dated 26.04.2010. The application filed by the appellant was listed in the Court on 20.07.2010. On that date, an order was passed to list instant appeal itself for final hearing in the week commencing from 02.08.2010. The appeal was listed in the Court on 02.08.2010. On that date, the appeal was adjourned to 16.08.2010; but, some how, the appeal was not listed in Court and, again, on 21.09.2010 when the appeal was listed in the Court, no one was present due to strike, therefore, co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed order to list the appeal after Dashera Break. 2. Next date of hearing was fixed as 26.04.2011 by the office but the appellant insurance company preferred second stay application, upon which, the appeal came up for hearing on 21.02.2011. On that date, an order was made by the co-ordinate Bench to list the appeal on 11.02.2011. Thereafter, again on 01.03.2011 an order was made to list the appeal on 08.03.2011. 3. In this appeal filed under Section .173, Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant insurance company has challenged the judgment and award dated 07.11.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Abu Road (District Sirohi) in MAC Case No. 22/2007, whereby, compensation of Rs. 3,45,600/- has been awarded and appellant insurance company was directed to first satisfy the award and, then, to recover the same from respondents No. 5 to 7. 4. Although the Claims Tribunal passed an order for satisfying the award by the insurance company and, then, to recover the same from respondents No. 5 to 7; but, upon perusal of this appeal it is revealed that no liability has been directly fastened upon the insurance company in the judgment impugned passed by the Claims Tribunal. 5. Before proceeding further, it is worthwhile to observe that the insurance company has not been held directly responsible to pay compensation and finding with regard to direct liability has been fixed upon respondents No. 5 to 7; but, in whole of the memo of appeal, the appellant insurance company has challenged the finding of the Tribunal as if insurance company has filed appeal on behalf of the vehicle owner or driver. Inspite of the fact that no liability has been fixed upon the insurance company but learned counsel for the appellant raised his argument against the finding of learned Claims Tribunal with regard to liability imposed upon the owner and driver of the vehicle as if the insurance company is aggrieved with the finding. When it is pointed out by the Court that no direct liability has been fixed upon the insurance company then why in most of the paragraphs of the appeal the insurance company has challenged the finding which is obviously not given against the insurance company. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant insurance company while giving reply to the query of the Court, submits that the Claims Tribunal has though not held the insurance company directly responsible for compensation but passed an order to first satisfy the award, therefore, the insurance company is challenging the finding of the Claims Tribunal though it is not against the insurance company. 7. Brief facts of this appeal are that an incident was reported to the police on 19.10.2006 at about 10.30 A.M. by the brother of the deceased, in which, it is mentioned that deceased Vagta and three other persons were travelling in tractor bearing No. G-0240697-C and chassis No. 35004543, they were bringing karhhai from village Chanar and, on the way, the said tractor turned turtle near anicut at village Andaliya and, due to that accident, Vakta died. The police made investigation after registration of the FIR and filed challan against respondent No. 5 driver. The claimant-respondents No. 1 to 4 filed claim petition and to prove the claim led evidence. Learned Tribunal, after due trial, held that insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation because the driver of the vehicle was not possessing valid driving licence in his favour but the vehicle in question was insured with the insurance company, therefore, owner of the tractor and driver are jointly and individually responsible for compensation. Further, it is ordered that vehicle in question is insured with the insurance company, therefore, the insurance company shall first satisfy the award and, thereafter the insurance company shall be entitled to recover the said amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle. Further, it is ordered that vehicle in question is insured with the insurance company, therefore, the insurance company shall first satisfy the award and, thereafter the insurance company shall be entitled to recover the said amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle. No appeal has been filed either by the owner or driver but this appeal has been filed by the Insurance company, in which, following prayer has been made : "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that (i) the present appeal may kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Abu Road, District Sirohi dated 07.11.2008 in MACT Claim Case No. 22/07 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) Costs may please be awarded. (iii) Any other order which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the appellant." 8. Upon perusal of the prayer, it will reveal that insurance company is challenging the judgment and award as a whole as if the liability to pay compensation has been imposed upon the insurance company. Further, in whole of the pleadings, except para 3, the insurance company has criticized the finding against driver and owner arrived at by the Claims Tribunal. It is very strange that an attempt has been made by the insurance company to seek relief for quashing the award which is not even passed against the insurance company. Only liability has been fastened upon the appellant insurance company to first satisfy the award and, then, to recover the amount of compensation from owner and driver of the tractor because admittedly the vehicle in question is insured with the appellant insurance company but driver was not possessing driving licence. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant argued at length and made all. his efforts to satisfy the Court that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to passing the award of compensation is illegal. In my opinion, when no direct liability has been imposed upon the insurance company, then, why precious time of the Court has been wasted by the appellant for no worthy reason. his efforts to satisfy the Court that the finding of the Tribunal with regard to passing the award of compensation is illegal. In my opinion, when no direct liability has been imposed upon the insurance company, then, why precious time of the Court has been wasted by the appellant for no worthy reason. It is also worthwhile to observe here that once the first stay application was rejected for non-prosecution, then, attempt was made for recalling the said order but the Court passed an order to hear the appeal finally; but, again second stay application has been filed knowing well that liberty has already been granted to recover the amount from the owner and driver while exonerating the insurance company is not justified. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant after making all his efforts to get stay made request that the matter may be decided finally and, upon the request so made, co-ordinate Bench ordered that instead of deciding the application for recalling the order the matter may be heard finally. 11. All the above facts clearly speak that although liability of compensation is upon the driver and owner but appellant insurance company made attempt seeking prayer to quash the finding of the Tribunal which is not against the appellant insurance company and since the vehicle in question is insured with the appellant insurance company, the Tribunal passed order that first the insurance company shall satisfy the award and, then, recover the amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle. Such type of conduct of the insurance company is hereby censured. 12. With regard to challenge to the order of first satisfying the award by the insurance company, at the first instance, it is required to be observed that no such prayer has been made by the insurance company in the prayer of appeal, the prayer has been made to quash and set aside the impugned award as a whole; but, the question which is raised by the appellant insurance company requires adjudication, therefore, I deem it just and proper to decide the prayer with regard to order of the Claims Tribunal to first satisfy the award by the appellant insurance company and, then, to recover the amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle. 13. 13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant vehemently argued that no such order was to be passed against the insurance company because the insurance company has been exonerated from the liability on the ground that driver of the tractor was not holding valid driving licence. So also, as per the finding the deceased was travelling as passenger on the vehicle in question, therefore, if such finding has been given by the Tribunal then, there was no occasion for the Tribunal to pass an order against the insurance company to first satisfy the award and, then, recover the amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant raised two grounds. First, that if the driver was not possessing valid driving licence then direction to pay and recover the amount of compensation cannot be given and, secondly, if the passenger of the vehicle is not third party within the meaning of "third party" in the Act of 1988, then, no direction can be issued to the insurance company to satisfy the award. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant has invited my attention towards the following judgments (1) 2007 (2) WLC (SC) Civil 41 : MACD 2007 (1) (SC) 390, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meena Variyal & Ors. . (2) MACD 2007 (1) (SC) 541, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Brij Mohan & Ors. . (3) MACD 2009 (SC) 100, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rattani & Ors. . (4) 2009(1) WLC (SC) Civil 556 : MACD 2009 (SC) 104, National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Meena Aggarwal . (5) 2007(2) WLC (SC) Civil 430 : MACD 2007 (1) (SC) 600, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Premlata Shukla & Ors. . 15. After hearing argument, I have perused the award impugned. Upon perusal of the award, it appears that four issues were framed by the Claims Tribunal but there is no finding of the Tribunal that deceased was third party and was travelling as a passenger in the tractor. Therefore, the above judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant are not relevant because the insurance company has been exonerated from the liability on the ground that the tractor driver was not possessing valid driving licence. Therefore, the above ground for seeking relief is hereby rejected. 16. Therefore, the above judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellant are not relevant because the insurance company has been exonerated from the liability on the ground that the tractor driver was not possessing valid driving licence. Therefore, the above ground for seeking relief is hereby rejected. 16. With regard to second ground that the driver was not possessing valid driving licence, therefore, no direction can be issued to satisfy the award first and, then, recover the amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle in question. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that while deciding issue No. 3 it has been held by the Claims Tribunal that the driver was no possessing valid driving licence to drive the tractor which is mandatory to possess as per policy conditions. Therefore, the order to first satisfy the award and then recover the amount from the owner and driver is erroneous. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention towards following judgments : (1) 2008(1) WLC (SC) Civil 774 : MACD 2008 (SC) 102, Sardari & Others v. Sushil Kumar & Others . (2) MACD 2008 (SC) 156, Premkumari & Others v. Prahlad Dev & Others . (3) 2008(2) WLC (SC) Civil 635 : 2008 ACJ 2654 , Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. . (4) 2009 ACJ 1426 , Bhuwan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. . (5) MACD 2009 (SC) 552, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni & Another . (6) 2010 (1) WLC (Raj.) 591, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Magi & Others . 17. I have examined the aforesaid judgments. All the above cases are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case because upon two grounds the insurance company cannot be ordered to first satisfy the award and then recover the amount from the owner and driver if the findings are on record that, (1) driver was not possessing valid driving licence, (2) the deceased was not third party. 18. In this case, out of two ground, though one ground is in existence that driver was not possessing driving licence but there is no finding of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment that deceased Vakta was not third party. 18. In this case, out of two ground, though one ground is in existence that driver was not possessing driving licence but there is no finding of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment that deceased Vakta was not third party. Therefore, in absence of finding that deceased Vakta was not third party, the insurance company cannot claim the relief that insurance company is not liable to first satisfy the award passed by the Tribunal and, then, to recover the amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle in question. 19. In this view of the matter, when out of two grounds, one is not in existence, then, obviously the insurance company has rightly been directed to first satisfy the award and, then, to recover the amount from the owner and driver. 20. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed. However, it is required to be observed that in this case a young boy died in the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor which is insured with the appellant insurance company, therefore, the insurance company shall comply the award within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment because at the time of death of late Vakta in the year 2006, his daughter was 7 years old, son was 5 years old, wife was 26 years old and mother was 50 years old; and, they are still waiting for the amount of compensation from last five years and insurance company, for one or the other reason, inspite of dismissal of the stay application did not pay the amount. Therefore. now the insurance company shall pay the amount of compensation without further delay within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment and report compliance to this Court within the time allowed.Appeal Dismissed. *******