Judgment : These four appeals arise out of the decisions of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam (for short the Tribunal) dated 25.4.2003 in four original petitions i.e., OP Nos.812, 810, 813 and 34 of 2001. The United India Insurance Company is the appellant in all the four appeals. These four appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the issue for consideration is same in all the four appeals. 2. In all the O.Ps, the learned tribunal held that cause of accident was rash and negligent driving by driver of the crime vehicle and determined compensation payable to dependants of deceased. The Tribunal declared that the deceased were gratuitous passengers and thus insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. The learned Tribunal held the owner, driver and cleaner of the crime vehicle liable to pay compensation. Having held so, directed the appellant insurance company to first pay the amount of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal and then recover the money from the owner of the vehicle. Assailing the said orders, these four appeals are filed. 3. The only issue for consideration in these appeals is having held that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle, whether the claims tribunal is justified in directing the appellant to first pay the compensation awarded by the tribunal to the claimants and then recover from the owner of the vehicle.? 4. Briefly the facts in these appeals are as under: 5. On 9.11.1999 several persons boarded a goods vehicle bearing AP-16-W 8248 at Benz Centre Circle, Vijayawada to go to their native village to celebrate Nagulachavithi festival in their village. From each of them, driver collected fare of Rs.32/-. When the goods vehicle reached Eluru town, the driver of the vehicle directed the cleaner to drive the vehicle and went to sleep. Cleaner took charge of the vehicle and drove the vehicle with high speed in a rash and negligent manner. When the vehicle reached Kikaram village, the cleaner lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle dashed against the culvert on the right side of the road margin and turned turtle, due to which, four of the passengers died. 6. Cleaner took charge of the vehicle and drove the vehicle with high speed in a rash and negligent manner. When the vehicle reached Kikaram village, the cleaner lost control over the vehicle and the vehicle dashed against the culvert on the right side of the road margin and turned turtle, due to which, four of the passengers died. 6. The original petitions are instituted by dependents of the deceased claiming compensation on account of the accident occurred to the vehicle in which they were traveling resulting in death of the breadwinner of the families. The claimants have impleaded the owner, driver, cleaner of the vehicle and United India Insurance Company Limited as respondents. 7. The learned Tribunal formulated five issues for consideration. Issue No.4, which is relevant in these appeals, reads as under : “Whether the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners” ? 8. Accepting the contention of the Insurance company that the passengers were not authorized fare passengers, the learned Tribunal discharged the insurance company from liability to indemnify the owner. The learned Tribunal held that the driver, cleaner and the owner of the vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation determined in individual cases to the petitioners for the death of the deceased passengers. 9. Having answered the issue, the learned Tribunal directed the appellant to pay the compensation amount and to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Aggrieved by that portion of the award directing the appellant to first pay the compensation and then to recover from the owner of the vehicle in all the original petitions, the present appeals are filed. 10. Heard the learned counsel Sri E.Venugopal Reddy representing the appellant, learned senior counsel Sri Kanakamedala Ravindra Kumar representing owner of the crime vehicle and learned counsel Sri Ravi Kumar Toleti representing the claimants. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the learned Tribunal having held that the appellant is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing liability to pay the compensation to the claimants and then recover from the owner of the vehicle. 12. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the learned Tribunal having held that the appellant is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle exceeded its jurisdiction in imposing liability to pay the compensation to the claimants and then recover from the owner of the vehicle. 12. Relying on the provisions in sub-section (1) (4) and (5) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988 (for short the Act) learned Counsel submits that statute has taken care of circumstances where insurance company is obligated to pay first and recover from the owner even when certain violations have been made by policy holder. Thus, only in such cases the question of pay and recover would arise. It is contended that the said provisions are not attracted and claimants are gratuitous passengers. 13. Learned counsel for respondent-owner supported the decision of learned Tribunal. Learned counsel for claimants submits that even though the claims Tribunal has awarded compensation as early as on 25.4.2003, the claimants are yet to get compensation and are subjected to lot of hardship and suffering due to long pendency of litigation. They pray that Insurance company be mandated to pay the compensation forthwith and to recover from the owner. 14. Owner of the motor vehicle is responsible for consequences resulting in accident of his vehicle. On entering into contract of insurance, the insurance company seeks to indemnify the owner on the compensation payable to claimants who were victims of accident in terms of the contract of insurance. The insurance company can eschew itself from such obligation if terms of contract are violated. In such an event, the burden shifts back to the owner to pay the claims. The rights and obligations of insured and insurer and victims of accidents involving motor vehicles are regulated by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The primary objective of this enactment as with reference to claims for compensation is to protect the interest of innocent victims of motor vehicle accidents and their dependants. It is a welfare legislation. The legislative intent contained therein is required to be interpreted with a view to give effect thereto. The accidents paralyse otherwise smooth moving wheels of life and completely upsetting the family’s dreams and aspirations, many times taking the stuff out of entire family or leaving minor children or old parents left in the lurch. It is a welfare legislation. The legislative intent contained therein is required to be interpreted with a view to give effect thereto. The accidents paralyse otherwise smooth moving wheels of life and completely upsetting the family’s dreams and aspirations, many times taking the stuff out of entire family or leaving minor children or old parents left in the lurch. Several safeguards are provided to the victims and their dependants in getting suitable compensation for the loss of life or limb. Keeping the primary objective of welfare legislation, Courts are concerned with awarding just compensation and to ensure that the compensation awarded reaches the victims or their dependants as early as possible. Delay in payment of compensation mitigates against the very objective of the enactment. 15. Relevant provisions of the Act, 1988 are Sections 146, 147, 149, and 168. Section 146 mandates taking of insurance policies on motor vehicles. No motor vehicle can ply without a policy of insurance. Section 147(1)(a)(b) of the Act deals with requirements of policies and limits of liability. Section 149 of the Act, 1988 imposes duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks. Section 168 of the Act, empowers the claims Tribunal to determine the amount of compensation and issue directions regarding payment of compensation. 16. The issue of directing insurance company to pay the compensation amount first and then recover is considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court in plethora of cases. Few precedents on the issue are discussed hereunder. 17. In NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. BALJIT KAUR AND OTHERS (2004) 2 SCC 1 ), NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. CHALLA BHARATHAMMA AND OTHERS (2004) 8 SCC 517 ), ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. NANJAPPAN AND OTHERS (2004) 13 SCC 224 ), and NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. KUSUM AND OTHERS (2009) 8 SCC 377 ) the Hon’ble Supreme Court while upholding the stand of the Insurance Company that it is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle issued directions to pay the compensation determined by the claims Tribunal and to recover from the owner. 18. SARDARI is a case of driver of the tractor not holding a driving licence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: 10. 18. SARDARI is a case of driver of the tractor not holding a driving licence. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: 10. Although, in terms of a contract of insurance, which is in the realm of private law domain having regard to the object for which Sections 147 and 149 of the Act had been enacted, the social justice doctrine as envisaged in the Preamble of the Constitution of India has been given due importance. The Act, however, itself provides for the cases where the insurance company can avoid its liability. Avoidance of such liability would largely depend upon violation of the conditions of contract of insurance. Where the breach of conditions of contract is ex facie apparent from the records, the court will not fasten the liability on the insurance company. In certain situations, however, the court while fastening the liability on the owner of the vehicle may direct the insurance company to pay to the claimants the awarded amount with liberty to it to recover the same from the owner. (emphasis supplied)” 19. In the case of NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs PARVATHNENI AND ANOTHER (2009) 8 SCC 785 ) the Hon’ble Supreme Court doubted the correctness of earlier decisions issued directing insurance company to pay to the claimants and to recover from the owner, when insurance company is held not liable to pay the compensation. The matter is referred to a larger Bench and is pending consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. SAJU P.PAUL AND ANOTHER (2013) 2 SCC 41 ) was a case of spare driver not covered by insurance policy. The Tribunal passed award in favour of claimants and fixed liability on the insurance company. On appeal, High Court reversed the decision of Tribunal. However, on a review filed by claimants, the same is allowed. On appeal, Hon’ble Supreme Court reversed the decision of High Court discharging the Insurance Company from the liability. On issue of pay and recover the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under: “26. The pendency of consideration of the above questions by a larger Bench does not mean that the course that was followed in BaljitKaur (supra) and ChallaUpendra Rao (supra) should not be followed, more so in a peculiar fact situation of this case. In the present case, the accident occurred in 1993. At that time, the claimant was 28 years old. The pendency of consideration of the above questions by a larger Bench does not mean that the course that was followed in BaljitKaur (supra) and ChallaUpendra Rao (supra) should not be followed, more so in a peculiar fact situation of this case. In the present case, the accident occurred in 1993. At that time, the claimant was 28 years old. He is now about 48 years. The claimant was a driver on heavy vehicle and due to the accident he has been rendered permanently disabled. He has not been able to get compensation so far due to the stay order passed by this Court. He cannot be compelled to struggle further for recovery of the amount. The Insurance Company has already deposited the entire awarded amount pursuant to the order of this Court passed on 1-8-201114 and the said amount has been invested in a fixed deposit account. Having regard to these peculiar facts of the case in hand, we are satisfied that the claimant (Respondent 1) may be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the Insurance Company before this Court along with accrued interest. The Insurance Company (the appellant) thereafter may recover the amount so paid from the owner (Respondent 2 herein). The recovery of the amount by the Insurance Company from the owner shall be made by following the procedure as laid down by this Court in ChallaUpendra Rao9.” 21. In two recent decisions, this Court has also adopted the principle of pay and recover. 22. RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HYDERABAD Vs. MOHD.SALEEM AND ANOTHER ( 2013 (3) ALD 246 ) is a case of unauthorized person traveling in a goods vehicle. Insurance company is held not liable to pay compensation. However, the claims Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the compensation in the first instance and then recover from the owner. Aggrieved thereby, insurance company filed the appeal. Following the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Baljith Kaur, Kusum Lata and Kamala this Court upheld the direction issued by the Claims Tribunal. This Court held that by virtue of the power vested in the Tribunal under Section 168 of the Act, the Tribunal is competent to issue direction to the insurer to satisfy the award in the first instance in favour of the victims/third parties and recover the amounts so paid from the insured. This Court held that by virtue of the power vested in the Tribunal under Section 168 of the Act, the Tribunal is competent to issue direction to the insurer to satisfy the award in the first instance in favour of the victims/third parties and recover the amounts so paid from the insured. The learned single Judge followed earlier decision of Division Bench in MACAM No. 2535 and 1661 of 2006. 23. In the case of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED , KHAMMAM Vs. KARAM DHANALAKSHMI AND OTHERS ( 2013 (3) ALD 124 ), though learned Tribunal held that insurance company is not liable to pay compensation, directed the insurance company to pay the compensation and to recover from the owner. This is challenged by the insurance company. The direction of the claims Tribunal is upheld. This court held as under: “7. Before parting with this Judgment, I consider it just and reasonable to observe as follows: As when accident occurs, the concerned police officials and the Road Transport Authority officials should inform the insurance companies with which the vehicle or the vehicles involved in the accident are insured. Then, the insurance companies must verify whether there are any violations of conditions of policy. If, in the opinion of the insurance company, there are violations of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the insurance companies must take steps to see that the vehicle or vehicles involved in the accident or the properties of the insured sufficient to enable the Insurance Companies to recover the amount of compensation that may be approximately awarded to the claimants should be attached. All such steps have to be taken at the initial stage itself. Admittedly, no such steps were taken by the Insurance Company till this date, therefore, at this stage, it may not be just and reasonable to issue directions as prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is made it clear that the insurance company is at liberty to initiate proceedings before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner in favour of the insurer. It is made it clear that the insurance company is at liberty to initiate proceedings before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner in favour of the insurer. The insurance company may take all steps necessary to recover the amount from the insured, but release of the amount in favour of the claimants cannot be stopped in the interest of justice, because the accident in this case occurred on 19.4.2008 and the first claimant was aged about 23 years the 2nd claimant was aged about one year, the third claimant was aged about 60 years and the 4th claimant is aged about 58 years on the date of filing of the claim petition and there is no possibility to dispose of the appeal in near future since MACMAs of the year 2000-2001 are still pending. Therefore, it is not desirable to accept the request of the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is directed to comply with the award passed by the Tribunal within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On deposit of such amount, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the same with accrued interest thereon.” 24. In the cases on hand the accident occurred on 9.11.1999 resulting in death of persons whose dependants instituted these four Original Petitions. The awards were passed on 25.4.2003. So far only 50 % of the compensation awarded is deposited. Learned counsels are not clear whether claimants have withdrawn the said amount. They are already caught in the cross fire due to the litigation anxiously waiting endlessly for the compensation amount which they need desperately. Thus, at this stage, if the direction of Claims Tribunal is upset, the claimants would be left in the lurch. They have to undergo rigmarole to get their compensation from the owner. It would, thus, be unjust to put these hapless claimants to such rigors at this stage. Granting relief in favour of appellant would result in greater injustice to claimants. On the contrary insurance company is not subjected to any loss. The liability to pay compensation by owner remains. The appellant is required to take steps to recover from owner. 25. It would, thus, be unjust to put these hapless claimants to such rigors at this stage. Granting relief in favour of appellant would result in greater injustice to claimants. On the contrary insurance company is not subjected to any loss. The liability to pay compensation by owner remains. The appellant is required to take steps to recover from owner. 25. Following the above precedents and in view of the peculiar facts of these cases, I am of the opinion that the directions issued by the Claims Tribunal to the appellant to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants and then recover from the owner of the vehicle cannot be said as illegal, perverse and in excess of jurisdiction. Hence, appeals are dismissed. Sequel to the same, miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed. In the circumstances, no order as to costs.