JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved by the award dated 23.11.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh, Ajmer (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal"), whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation of Rs. 35,565/- along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum to the claimant, the Insurance Company has approached this Court. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that since Sobharam, the injured in this case, was travelling in a tractor trolly as a passenger and since the tractor was insured only for agricultural purposes, therefore, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in holding that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount. However, while relying on the case of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Brij Mohan & ors., 2007 (3) TAC 20 (SC) , the learned Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount while giving it the right of recovery. According to the learned counsel, in the said judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court had directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount. But, such a direction had been issued while the Hon'ble Supreme Court had exercised its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. However, such a power could not be exercised by the learned Tribunal. He has further relied upon the cases of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Om Prakash & Ors., 2005 (8) RDD 3042 (Raj.) , and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Chinnamma & Ors., 2004 (3) TAC 577 (SC) 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. 4. Undoubtedly in catena of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have repeatedly held that even if there is a breach of policy, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation amount. However, the Insurance Company is also entitled to recover the said amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. In this case, there is merely a breach of policy. Hence, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in directing the Insurance Company to initially pay the compensation amount, and to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Thus, the decision of the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. 5. Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has not been able to show as to how the financial interest of the Company would be adversely affected. Thus, the decision of the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted. 5. Moreover, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has not been able to show as to how the financial interest of the Company would be adversely affected. With the right of recovery being given to the Insurance Company, if it were to initially pay the compensation amount, obviously, the Insurance Company would recover every single penny that it has paid to the claimants. Since the award does not adversely affect the financial interest of the appellant, the Insurance Company, this appeal is highly misplaced. 6. Hence, there is no merit in the appeal; it is, hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******