Judgment : 1. This appeal is disposed of at the admission stage, as both sides reported ready to advance submissions of the admission stage. 2. The appellant-insurance company is the second respondent before the Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XVI Additional Chief Judge-cum-II Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in O.P.No.806 of 2008. Compensation at Rs.1,62,000/- was awarded as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/- for the death of K. Teja, who was five years old at the time of the accident. 3. The claimants, who are the parents of the deceased contend that on 08.09.2007 at about 4 p.m., the offending oil tanker bearing registration No.AP-16U-8280 owned by the third respondent herein and insured with the appellant dashed the deceased resulting in the death of the deceased. They claim that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending oil tanker. 4. The Tribunal primarily held that the third respondent-owner of the oil tanker was Bable to satisfy the claim. It was held that there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy, so much so, the insurance company is not liable. However, the Tribunal directed the insurance company as well as owner of the vehicle to deposit the awarded compensation pointing out that the insurance company thereafter might recover the same from the owner of the oil tanker. Questioning this part of the order, the insurer laid the appeal. 5. Be it noted that there is no appeal from the claimants. Inter alia, Sri V. Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for the claimants contended that although the claimants did not seek for any enhancement, enhanced compensation can be awarded on the basis of the observations of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopali (2012 ACJ 2131). The Supreme Court indeed held that it was open for the Court to grant compensation over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. I am afraid that the claimants have not made out any ground for enhancing the compensation, I, therefore, do not consider that this is a fit case where award of compensation at Rs.1,62,000/- as granted by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced. 6. The driver of the oil tanker did not hold valid and effective driving licence. He possessed driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle only. 6. The driver of the oil tanker did not hold valid and effective driving licence. He possessed driving licence to drive the light motor vehicle only. First, one should possess heavy motor vehicle driving licence to drive the lorry. Further, to drive the oil tanker, perhaps, one should possess licence to drive hazardous vehicle driving licence. There is no dispute regarding these aspects. as the driver did not hold proper driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, the Tribunal considered that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Again, there is no dispute about the same. However, the insurer questions the directions of the Tribunal in directing the insurer to pay and then recover. 7. Sri A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the insurer submitted that the principal of pay and recover has been given a goby and cannot be accepted. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Anubai Gopichand Thakare (2007 (109) Bom.L.R.1786), a learned single Judge held that pay and recover against the insurer can be ordered by the Supreme Court under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution of India and that such a power is not available to a High Court. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Pakir ( 2008 ACJ 2161 ), the Supreme Court ordered to pay and recover against the insurer by specifically exercising its power under Article 142. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni ( (2009) 8 SCC 785 ), the directions of pay and recover in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004 ACJ 1 (SC)) was doubted and issue was referred to the Chief Justice of India for constituting a Larger Bench. However, the issue has not been resolved so far by the Supreme Court. 8. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd., v. G. Sampoorna ( 2010 (5) ALT 105 ) a learned single Judge of this Court held that Swarna Singh (5 supra) ruling does not apply to High Courts, as the powers under Articles 142 and 136 of the Constitution of India are not conferred upon the High Courts. On the basis of such a finding, it was held that it is not desirable to direct to pass orders of pay and recover. On the basis of such a finding, it was held that it is not desirable to direct to pass orders of pay and recover. On the basis of these decisions, it is contended by the learned counsel for the insurer that the order of the Tribunal directing the insurer to pay the compensation and later recovered the same from the owner of the oil tanker is not justified. 9. Sri V. Atchuta Ram, learned counsel for the claimants in his turn relied upon by the series of decisions. In National Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Geeta Bhat ( 2008 ACJ 1892 ) the Supreme Court ordered to pay and recover on the basis of Swarna Singh’s (5 supra) case. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha ( 2008 ACJ 1928 ) once again pay and recover was ordered. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chandra Devi (2012 ACJ 567) the Allahabad High Court went further and held that pay and recover can be ordered even without invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution of India. In view of the specific observations of the Supreme Court in Chandra Devi (9 supra), I consider that pay and recover can be ordered by the High Court depending upon the circumstances of the case and that such order cannot be resisted on the ground that the Supreme Court are not entitled to order pay and recover. 10. In the circumstances of the present case, where the deceased was a boy of five years old and where the awarded amount was Rs.1,62,000/-, I consider that the order to pay and recover by the Tribunal is perfectly justified. I therefore, see no merits in this appeal. 11. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, consequently, is dismissed, however, without costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.