JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. 2. This First Appeal From Order is preferred challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and award dated 7.11.2012. passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 2, Hamirpur in M.A.C.P. No. 49 of 2007, Smt. Rani and others v. Vir Krishna Singh and others, whereby a sum of Rs. 4,42,000/- was awarded as compensation to the claimant-respondents 3. The appellant has sought relief for setting aside the award of the Tribunal by which the claim of the claimant-respondents as against New India Assurance Company has been allowed. 4. The facts of the case in brief are that the claimant-respondents had instituted Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 49 of 2007, Smt. Rani and others v. Vir Krishna Singh and two others, for compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,25,000/- alongwith interest. On 19.5.2007 at about 6.00 a.m. Shiv Pal Singh, the husband of the claimant alongwith one Sandeep Singh was going to Railway Station Kabarwai on his Motor-Cycle No. UP-93 A-1469, Hero Honda Splendor via Kabarwai and when they reached in front of Banda petrol pump from ‘Tri-junction Kabarwai, truck No. U.P.-71 B-5791 driven rashly and negligently by its driver hit the motor-cycle driven by Shiv Pal Singh. He died on the spot. Sandeep Singh received injuries and the motor-cycle was badly damaged in the accident. The truck was seized from the spot. Shiv Pal Singh (since deceased) is alleged to have been working on Commission in P.A.C.M. Pvt. Limited Insurance Company and is alleged to be earning Rs. 10,000/- per month. Apart from it income from agriculture was also claimed. 5. The appellant, the New India Assurance Company Limited denied the claim stating it to be baseless and illegal. It was specifically denied by the appellant that the income of the deceased was not Rs. 10,000/- per month. 6. It appears from the record that the appellant-the New India Assurance Company moved an application on 4.7.2012 under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which has been allowed on the same day. Award was passed against the appellant-the New India Assurance Company for a sum of Rs. 4,42,000/- by the Tribunal on the basis that Shiv Pal Singh (since deceased) was earning about Rs. Award was passed against the appellant-the New India Assurance Company for a sum of Rs. 4,42,000/- by the Tribunal on the basis that Shiv Pal Singh (since deceased) was earning about Rs. 3000/- per month by applying multiplier of ‘16’ taking his age between 30-35 years and deducting 1/4th towards his expenses. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed the following part of the impugned award saying that it has been wrongly computed. Þtgka rd izfrdj dh lax.kuk dk iz’u gSA nq?kZVuk ds le; e`rd dh mez 35 o"kZ crkbZ x;h gSA e`rd f’koiky flag ih0,0lh0,e0 bf.M;k fy0 esa ,tsUV ds :i esa 10 gtkj :i;k deh’ku ij dke djrs FksA e`rd dh foèkok iRuh] nks yM+fd;ka fuf/k o jek] ,d iq= lR;e] :i flag lfirk dqy 5 vkfJr gSA vk;q ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ Bksl izek.k ;kph dh rjQ ls ugh fn;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa e`rd f’koiky flag dh nq?kZVuk ds le; vk;q 35 o"kZ ls vfèkd ,oa 40 o"kZ ds chp dh ekuk tkuk mfpr gksxkA eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e dh f}rh; vuqlwph ds vuqlkj 35 o"kZ ls vf/kd o 40 o"kZ ds chp ds fy, 16 ds xq.kkad dk iz;ksx fd, tkus dk izfo/kku gSA bl rjg izLrqr dsl esa 16 ds xq.kkad dk iz;ksx fd;k tkuk esjs fopkj ls mfpr gksxkA e`rd ds ikap vkfJr gSA bl rjg ljyk oekZ cuke fnygh VªkUliksVZ dkiksZjs’ku 2009 ¼75½ ,0,y0vkj0 638 lqizhe dksVZ esa izfrikfnr fof/k ds vuqlkj tgka ifjokj ds lnL;ksa dh la[;k 4 ls 6 gksrh gS ogka ij e`rd ds O;fDrxr [kpsZ dh dVkSrh 1@4 fd;k tkuk pkfg,A pwafd izLrqr izdj.k esa vkfJrx.k dh la[;k 5 gS ,slh fLFkfr esa izLrqr izdj.k esa e`rd vxj thfor jgrk rks og vius mij viuh vk; dk 1@4 Hkkx [kpZ djrkA bl rjg izLrqr izdj.k esa O;fDrx.k [kpsZ esa dVkSrh 1@4 fd;k tkuk mfpr gSA” 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parwathneni and others, 2009(8) SCC 785 (SC), has held that in case of breach of policy right of recovery is not a good law and has referred the matter to Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger Bench and as such in view of that fact that since the matter has already been referred to the larger Bench, right of recovery on the ground of admitted breach of policy should not be given. 9. 9. No other point has been argued before us. 10. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the record it appears that Sandeep Singh, P.W.2 claimed himself to be the eye-witness of the accident as he was pillion rider with Shiv Pal Singh, who was driving motor cycle No. UP-95-A, 1469. He is the person, who is said to have informed the P.W.1 about the incident. P.W.1, Smt. Rani is not an eye-witness of the accident. 11. P.W.2, an eye-witness has also corroborated the fact stated in the claim petition regarding the manner in which Shiv Pal Singh had died under front tyre of the truck when the truck had caused the accident which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver. 12. P.W. 3, who was going for morning walk, is also an eye-witness of the accident by the aforesaid. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there is no contributory negligence of Shiv Pal Singh (since deceased), who was driving the motor-cycle. He was holder of valid licence and no evidence has been filed on behalf of the respondents to show that there was any contributory negligence of Shiv Pal Singh (since deceased) in causing of the accident. The truck No. UP-71 B, 5791 was insured by the New India Assurance Company-appellant. The copy of driving licence of truck driver was filed, which was valid on the date of accident for driving the heavy goods vehicle for the period 12.1.2007 to 11.1.2010, whereas the accident had taken place on 19.5.2007. The truck was also found to be registered and its road tax was paid. Since all the papers of the truck including registration and permit etc. were valid, therefore, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that as the insurance of the truck was effective, the appellant-New India Assurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants with right of recovery from respondent Nos. 6 and 7 i.e. Veer Krishna Singh son of K.K. Singh, resident of Jawalganj City, Fatehpur, P.S. Kotwali Fatehpur, Tehsil and District Fatehpur and Ram Govind Sharma son of Ram Autar Sharma resident of Hariharganj, Fatehpur, P.S. Kotwali, District Fatehpur. As the Tribunal is of the opinion that where the Insurance Company pays the compensation without liability being fixed on it, it has right to recover and it need not file a case separately. 13. As the Tribunal is of the opinion that where the Insurance Company pays the compensation without liability being fixed on it, it has right to recover and it need not file a case separately. 13. In so far as the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parwathneni (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant stating that the matter regarding right of recovery given by the Courts to the Insurance Company having been referred to a larger Bench is concerned, suffice it to say that the matter is still pending consideration before the Apex Court and the law has not been settled as yet for there is difference of opinion. 14. In the circumstances, without entering into the question of law which has also been referred to a larger Bench as stated above, we hold that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation to the claimants with a right of recovery to the appellant-the New India Assurance Company. 15. For all the reasons stated above, the appeal is dismissed. 16. Let the statutory amount of money deposited by the appellant in this Court be remitted to the Tribunal concerned within period of two weeks. ——————