JUDGMENT : RAJIV SHARMA, J. 1. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals, the same were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment. However, in order to maintain clarity, facts of FAO (MVA) No. 404 of 2007 have been taken into consideration. 2. One Sh. Chet Ram was travelling from Chalach village to Nerwa on 24.2.2003 in truck No.HP-08-0811. It was owned by respondent No.9 and driven by respondent No.8 Kalamu Din. It was insured with appellant company. Many passengers were travelling in the truck. Truck met with an accident and it went off the road. All the occupants of the truck suffered multiple simple and grievous injuries and number of passengers died on the spot. Chet Ram also died in the accident. He was 30 years of age. He was working as mason. He was earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per month. Claim petition was filed by the widow and children before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Shimla. According to the owner and driver, the accident has not taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver. According to them, persons were travelling in the truck with their goods. They did not participate in the proceedings and were proceeded ex parte. The Insurance Company has also contested the claim petition. Insurance Company has taken all the pleas available under sections 147, 149 and 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. According to it, the driver was not possessing valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. The truck was being driven in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The passengers were travelling as gratuitous passengers. Income of Chet Ram was also disputed. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-III, Shimla after taking into consideration the income of deceased on the basis of statement of PW-3 Punni Devi, assessed the income of the deceased at Rs. 2,000/- per month. He applied the multiplier of 12. A sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- was awarded. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that driver was not possessing valid and effective driving licence. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also came to the conclusion that since the passengers were not carrying their goods, they were gratuitous passengers. In other words, they were not treated as authorised passengers. A sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- was awarded. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that driver was not possessing valid and effective driving licence. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal also came to the conclusion that since the passengers were not carrying their goods, they were gratuitous passengers. In other words, they were not treated as authorised passengers. However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in all the claim petitions ordered the award amount firstly to be deposited by the insurance company with the Tribunal and later on, same could be recovered by it from the owner of the truck in question. 3. Mr. Ravinder Arora and Ms. Shilpa Sood, Advocates have vehemently argued that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has erroneously ordered the appellant-insurance company to pay the amount of compensation at the first instance and then to recover the same from the owner of the truck. They also contended that the passengers were gratuitous and the insurance company was not liable to pay any compensation. 4. Mr. G.S. Rathore, Mr. D.S. Nainta and Mr. Bhupender Kanwar Advocates have supported the directions issued by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal whereby the appellant insurance company has been made liable to pay the amount of the compensation at the first instance and then to recover the same from the owner of the truck. 5. The factum of the accident is not disputed. The owner of the truck and driver initially filed their replies but have not contested the case and were proceeded ex parte. The insurance company has placed on record copy of insurance policy Ex-R-1. A bare perusal of the same makes it abundantly clear that the policy was "package policy". This aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was required to look into the nature of the policy before returning findings on issue No.5. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has only made observation that as per the insurance policy, the truck in question could only be used for carrying goods within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Once it is found that the policy was "package policy, the insurance company was liable to indemnify the owner. However, at this stage, the Court is not going into this issue in detail since the parties are required to lead evidence to prove this issue. 6. Once it is found that the policy was "package policy, the insurance company was liable to indemnify the owner. However, at this stage, the Court is not going into this issue in detail since the parties are required to lead evidence to prove this issue. 6. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Balakrishnan and another, (2013) 1 SCC 731 : 2013 (1) TAC 1 have held that the insurer is liable to pay in case of "comprehensive/package policy but not in case of "Act policy. Their Lordships have held as under: "10. As per the command of Section 146 of the Act, the owner of a vehicle is obliged to obtain an insurance for the vehicle to cover the third party risk. Section 147 deals with the requirements of policies and limits of liability. Section 147 (1) which is relevant for the present purpose is reproduced below:- "147. Requirement of policies and limits of liability. Section 147 deals with the requirements of policies and limits of liability. Section 147 (1) which is relevant for the present purpose is reproduced below:- "147. Requirement of policies and limits of liability. - (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which - (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer, and (b) insurers the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub - section (2) - (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place , (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place, Provided that a policy shall not be required- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee - (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle, engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation. Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. On a scanning of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that the policy of insurance must be a policy which complies with the conditions enumerated under Section 147 (1) (a) & (b). It also provides where a policy is not required and also stipulates to cover any contractual liability. 22. The relevant portion of the circular which has been reproduced by the High Court is as follows:- "IRDA Ref: IRDA/NL/CIR/F&U/073/11/2009 16.11.2009 To CEOs of all general insurance companies Re: Liability of insurance companies in respect of occupants of a Private car and pillion rider on a two-wheeler under Standard Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Policy). Insurers' attention is drawn to wordings of Section (II) 1 (ii) of Standard Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Policy) for private car and two-wheeler under the (erstwhile) India Motor Tariff. For convenience the relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder:- 'Section II - Liability to Third Parties 1. Insurers' attention is drawn to wordings of Section (II) 1 (ii) of Standard Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Policy) for private car and two-wheeler under the (erstwhile) India Motor Tariff. For convenience the relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder:- 'Section II - Liability to Third Parties 1. Subject to the limits of liabilities as laid down in the Schedule hereto the company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of - (i) death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured.' It is further brought to the attention of insurers that the above provisions are in line with the following circulars earlier issued by the TAC on the subject: (i) Circular M.V. No. l of 1978 - dated 18th March, 1978 (regarding occupants carried in Private Car) effective from 25th March, 1977. (ii) MOT/GEN/10 dated 2nd June, 1986 (regarding pillion riders in a two-wheeler) effective from the date of the circular. The above circulars make it clear that the insured liability in respect of occupant(s) carried in a private car and pillion rider carried on two-wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. A copy each of the above circulars is enclosed for ready reference. The Authority vide circular No. 066/IRDA/F&U/Mar-08 dated March 26, 2008 issued under File & Use Guidelines has reiterated that pending further orders the insurers shall not vary the coverage, terms and conditions wording, warranties, clauses and endorsements in respect of covers that were under the erstwhile tariffs. Further the Authority, vide circular No. 019/IRDA/NL/F&U/Oct-08 dated November 6, 2008 has mandated that insurers are not permitted to abridge the scope of standard covers available under the erstwhile tariffs beyond the options permitted in the erstwhile tariffs. All general insurers are advised to adhere to the afore-mentioned circulars and any non- compliance of the same would be viewed seriously by the Authority. This is issued with the approval of competent authority. All general insurers are advised to adhere to the afore-mentioned circulars and any non- compliance of the same would be viewed seriously by the Authority. This is issued with the approval of competent authority. Sd/- (Prabodh Chander) Executive Director [emphasis supplied] 23. The High Court has also reproduced a circular issued by IRD dated 3.12.2009. It is instructive to quote the same:- "IRDA IRDA/NL/CIR/F&U/078/12/2009 3.12.2009. To All CEOs of All general insurance companies (except ECGC, AIC, Staff Health, Apollo) Re: Liability of insurance companies in respect of occupant of a private car and pillion rider in a two wheeler under Standard Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Policy). Pursuant to the Order of the Delhi High Court dated 23.11.2009 in MAC APP No. 176/2009 in the case of Yashpal Luthra v. United India and Ors., the Authority convened a meeting on November 26, 2009 of the CEOs of all the general insurance companies doing motor insurance business in the presence of the counsel appearing on behalf of the Authority and the leaned amicus curie. Based on the unanimous decision taken in the meeting by the representatives of the general insurance companies to comply with the IRDA circular dated 16th November, 2009 restating the position relating to the liability of all the general insurance companies doing motor insurance business in respect of the occupants in a private car and pillion rider on a two wheeler under the comprehensive/package policies which was communicated to the court on the same day i.e. November 26, 2009 and the court was pleased to pass the order (dt. 26.11.2009) received from the Court Master, Delhi High Court, is enclosed for your ready reference and adherence. In terms of the said order and the admitted liability of all the general insurance companies doing motor insurance business in respect of the occupants in a private car and pillion rider on a two-wheeler under the comprehensive/package policies, you are advised to confirm to the Authority, strict compliance of the circular dated 16th November, 2009 and orders dated 26.11.2009 of the High Court. Such compliance on your part would also involve: (i) withdrawing the plea against such a contest wherever taken in the cases pending before the MACT, and issue appropriate instructions to their respective lawyers and the operating officers within 7 days, (ii) with respect to all appeals pending before the High Courts on this point, issuing instructions within 7 days to the respective operating officers and the counsel to withdraw the contest on this ground which would require identification of the number of appeals pending before the High Courts (whether filed by the claimants or the insurers) on this issue within a period of 2 weeks and the contest on this ground being withdrawn within a period of four weeks thereafter, (iii) With respect to the appeals pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, informing, within a period of 7 days, their respective advocates on record about the IRDA Circulars, for appropriate advice and action. Your attention is also drawn to the discussions in the CEOs meeting on 26.11.2009, when it was reiterated that insurers must take immediate steps to collect statistics about accident claims on the above subject through a central point of reference decided by them as the same has to be communicated in due course to the Honourable High Court. You are therefore advised to take up the exercise of collecting and collating the information within a period of two months to ensure necessary & effective compliance of the order of the Court. The information may be centralized with the Secretariat of the General Insurance Council and also furnished to us. IRDA requires a written confirmation from you on the action taken by you in this regard. This has the approval of the Competent Authority. Sd/- (Prabodh Chander) Executive Director [emphasis added] 24. It is extremely important to note here that till 31st December, 2006 the Tariff Advisory Committee and, thereafter, from 1st January, 2007, IRDA functioned as the statutory regulatory authorities and they are entitled to fix the tariff as well as the terms and conditions of the policies by all insurance companies. The High Court had issued notice to the Tariff Advisory Committee and the IRDA to explain the factual position as regards the liability of the insurance companies in respect of an occupant in a private car under the "comprehensive/package policy. The High Court had issued notice to the Tariff Advisory Committee and the IRDA to explain the factual position as regards the liability of the insurance companies in respect of an occupant in a private car under the "comprehensive/package policy. Before the High Court, the Competent Authority of IRDA had stated that on 2nd June, 1986, the Tariff Advisory Committee had issued instructions to all the insurance companies to cover the pillion rider of a scooter/motorcycle under the "comprehensive policy and the said position continues to be in vogue till date. It had also admitted that the "comprehensive policy is presently called a "package policy". It is the admitted position, as the decision would show, the earlier circulars dated 18th March, 1978 and 2nd June, 1986 continue to be valid and effective and all insurance companies are bound to pay the compensation in respect of the liability towards an occupant in a car under the "comprehensive/package policy" irrespective of the terms and conditions contained in the policy. The competent authority of the IRDA was also examined before the High Court who stated that the circulars dated 18th March, 1978 and 2nd June, 1986 of the Tariff Advisory Committee were incorporated in the Indian Motor Tariff effective from 1st July, 2002 and they continue to be operative and binding on the insurance companies. Because of the aforesaid factual position, the circulars dated 16th November 2009 and 3rd December, 2009, that have been reproduced hereinabove, were issued. 26. In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of doubt that a "comprehensive/package policy" would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an "Act Policy" stands on a different footing from a "Comprehensive/Package Policy". As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a "Comprehensive/Package Policy" covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the "Act Policy" which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a "Comprehensive/Package Policy", the liability would be covered. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the "Act Policy" which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a "Comprehensive/Package Policy", the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in the case of Bhagyalakshmi (supra) and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same. 27. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the question that emerges for consideration is whether in the case at hand, the policy is an "Act Policy" or "Comprehensive/Package Policy". There has been no discussion either by the tribunal or the High Court in this regard. True it is, before us, Annexure P-1 has been filed which is a policy issued by the insurer. It only mentions the policy to be a "comprehensive policy" but we are inclined to think that there has to be a scanning of the terms of the entire policy to arrive at the conclusion whether it is really a "package policy" to cover the liability of an occupant in a car. 7. Mr. Ravinder Arora and Ms. Shilpa Sood have vehemently argued, on the basis of the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meera and others, 2011 ACJ 23 , that insurance company could not be made to satisfy the award of compensation amount and to recover the same from the owner. Learned Single Judge in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meera and others (supra) has held as under: "18. The next question which arises is whether the Insurance Company can be directed to satisfy the award and be directed to recover the amount from the insured? 19. Learned Single Judge in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meera and others (supra) has held as under: "18. The next question which arises is whether the Insurance Company can be directed to satisfy the award and be directed to recover the amount from the insured? 19. It may be mentioned that this Court in National Insurance Company v. Maghi Ram and others, Latest HLJ 2009 (HP) 532 following the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others, (2004) 2 SCC 1 : 2004 (1) TAC 366 had directed that the Insurance Company should satisfy the award and recover the amount from the Insurer. The Insurance Company challenged the judgment of this Court before the Apex Court. This direction of this Court was set aside and the Apex Court gave the following directions:- "14. For the reasons aforementioned, Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10694 is allowed and Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C ) No. 9910 of 2006 is dismissed. If the amount deposited by the insurance company has since been withdrawn by the first respondent, it would be open to the insurance company to recover the same in the manner specified by the High Court. But if the same has not been withdrawn the deposited amount may be refunded to the insurance company land the proceedings for realisation of the amount may be initialed against the owner of the vehicle. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs." 20. Reliance on behalf of the claimant has also been placed on the judgment of the apex Court in Deddappa and others v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 595 : 2008 (1) TAC 417, wherein after holding that the Insurance Company was not liable, the Court directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount. In my view this judgment cannot apply since in this case, the apex Court exercised its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to give these directions, This Court does not have any such jurisdiction. It would, however, be relevant to refer to another later judgment of the apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. In my view this judgment cannot apply since in this case, the apex Court exercised its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution to give these directions, This Court does not have any such jurisdiction. It would, however, be relevant to refer to another later judgment of the apex Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha & Ors., 2008 (7) Scale 310 : 2008 (1) TAC 801, wherein the apex Court after holding that the Insurance Company is not liable directed it to satisfy the award. Para 19 of the judgment reads as follows:- "19. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the limited extent and it is directed that the appellant- insurance company though not liable to pay the amount of compensation, but in the nature of this case it shall satisfy the award arid shall hare the right to recover the amount deposited by it along with interest from the owner of the vehicle, viz. respondent No. 8, particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by him nor has he chosen to appear before this Court to contest this appeal. This direction is given in the light of the judgments of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Others, (2004) 2 SCC 1 : 2004 (2) TAC 366 and Deddappa and Others v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 595 : 2008 (1) TAC 417." 21. The Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh K.K. & anr., 2008 (6) Scale 589 , after holding that the Insurance Company was not liable, gave the following directions:- "16. Keeping in view the aforementioned facts and circumstances into consideration, we are of the opinion that with a view to do complete justice between the parties, a direction should be given to the appellant to pay the amount to the claimant and realise the same from the owner of the vehicle. Such a direction would, in our opinion, serve the ends of justice. (17). We are passing this order also in view of the fact that the appellant has already deposited the amount pursuant to a direction issued by this Court dated 13.11.06." 22. On the basis of the aforesaid, judgments, it has been urged that this Court should also give similar directions to the Insurance Company. 23. (17). We are passing this order also in view of the fact that the appellant has already deposited the amount pursuant to a direction issued by this Court dated 13.11.06." 22. On the basis of the aforesaid, judgments, it has been urged that this Court should also give similar directions to the Insurance Company. 23. As noted above, in Deddappa's case (supra), the Apex Court gave the directions in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it under Article 142 of the Constitution, In Zaharulnisha's case, (supra), the Apex Court specifically followed the law laid down in Deddappa's case. Therefore, it can be said that in Zaharulnisha's case also, the orders were passed by the apex Court in exercise of jurisdiction vested in it by Article 142'of the Constitution of India. In Suresh's case (supra), though the apex Court has not specifically referred to Article 142, it is apparent that the directions have been given in the facts peculiar to that case. 24. On the other hand, in Kaushalya Devi's case (supra), apex Court has set aside the directions given by this Court directing the Insurance Company to deposit the amount. It specifically held that if the amount had not been withdrawn by the Insurance Company, it would be refunded to the Company and the claimant would recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. This is the latest judgment cited before me and I am bound by the same. 25. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that only the owner can be held liable to pay the award amount and this Court has no power to direct the Insurance Company to satisfy the award. Consequently, I am of the considered view that the award of the learned Tribunal in so far as it holds the Insurance Company liable to pay the compensation has to be set-aside. 26. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company is accordingly allowed. It is, however, clarified that in case any amount has already been paid to the claimants out of the amount deposited by the Insurance Company, then the Insurance Company shall not recover the same from the claimants, but shall recover the same from the owner of the vehicle." 8. Mr. Ravinder Arora and Ms. It is, however, clarified that in case any amount has already been paid to the claimants out of the amount deposited by the Insurance Company, then the Insurance Company shall not recover the same from the claimants, but shall recover the same from the owner of the vehicle." 8. Mr. Ravinder Arora and Ms. Shilpa Sood have also relied upon the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court rendered in FAO No. 102 of 2005 and analogous FAO No. 485 of 2005 decided on 1.1.2010. Learned Single Judge has held as under: "In view of the above discussion, it is clear that the Insurance Company could not have been directed to deposit the amount in the case of gratuitous passengers. The fact that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger stood established from the evidence that the deceased had taken the lift and as such was a gratuitous passenger and those findings of fact have not been shown to be incorrect during the course of arguments. In view of the above discussion, once it is held that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, the Insurance Company was not liable to deposit the amount in question. However, in case the amount has been deposited by the Insurance Company and has not been disbursed to the claimants, it shall be refunded to the Insurance Company. In case, part of the amount has been released in favour of the claimants, the same shall not be entitled to be refunded to the Insurance Company, who is held entitled to recover the same from the owner. The appeal filed by the appellant Insurance Company is allowed to this extent that the claimants are entitled to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. The cross appeal being FAO No.485 of 2005 filed by the owner and the driver of the vehicle is dismissed since there is no merit in the appeal filed by them. A certified copy of the judgment be placed on the record of FAO No.485 of 2005. However, there is no order as to costs." 9. The cross appeal being FAO No.485 of 2005 filed by the owner and the driver of the vehicle is dismissed since there is no merit in the appeal filed by them. A certified copy of the judgment be placed on the record of FAO No.485 of 2005. However, there is no order as to costs." 9. However, learned Single Judge in New India Assurance Company Limited v. Urja Gale and others, 2013 ACJ 587 has distinguished judgment rendered by him in 2011 ACJ 23 (supra) on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in AIR 2011 SC 1234 and has held that where there is violation of the driving licence, the insurance company can be asked to satisfy the award with liberty reserved to it to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. Learned Single Judge after following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, directed the insurance company to satisfy the award, but liberty was given to it to recover the same from the owner without filing a separate suit and could recover the same by filing execution proceedings. Learned Single Judge has held as under: "17. Now, the Apex Court in Kusum Lata & Ors. v. Satbir and Ors., AIR 2011 SC 1234 has clearly held that in case where there is violation of the driving licence, then the insurance company can be asked to satisfy the award with liberty reserve to it to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. Following the ratio of the Apex Court, the insurance company is directed to satisfy the award but it shall be at liberty to recover the same from the owner. It is clarified that the insurance company will not have to file separate suit or proceedings to recover the amount and can recover the amount from the owner by filing execution proceedings." 10. Now, the Court will advert to the case law the manner in which this issue has been addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. 11. Now, the Court will advert to the case law the manner in which this issue has been addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts. 11. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company v. Swaran Singh and others, 2004 ACJ 1 : 2004 (1) TAC 321 have observed that Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by way of compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles and its provisions have to be interpreted so as to effectuate this object. Their Lordships have further held that the liability of the insurance company to satisfy the decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver has been holding the field for a long time. Their Lordships have held as under: "96. It is, therefore, evident from the discussions made hereinbefore that the liability of the insurance company to satisfy the decree at the first instance and to recover the awarded amount from the owner or driver thereof has been holding the field for a long time. 102(i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object." 12. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company v. Kamla and others, (2001) 4 SCC 342 : 2001 (2) TAC 243 have held that the insurer and the insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition but the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid driving licence. Their Lordships have held as under: "25. Their Lordships have held as under: "25. The position can be summed up thus: The insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid licence. Learned counsel for the insured contended that it is enough if he establishes that he made all due enquiries and believed bona fide that the driver employed by him had a valid driving licence, in which case there was no breach of the policy condition. As we have not decided on that contention it is open to the insured to raise it before the Claims Tribunal. In the present case, if the Insurance Company succeeds in establishing that there was breach of the policy condition, the Claims Tribunal shall direct the insured to pay that amount to the insurer. In default the insurer shall be allowed to recover that amount (which the insurer is directed to pay to the claimants - third parties) from the insured person." 13. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Challa Bharathamma and others, (2004) 8 SCC 517 : 2005 (1) TAC 4, after considering the beneficial object of the Act, have held that it would be proper to the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability and in some cases the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. Their Lordships have further held that in these circumstances, insurer is not required to file a suit. It can initiate a proceeding before the executing court if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Their Lordships have held as under: "13. The residual question is what would be the appropriate direction. It can initiate a proceeding before the executing court if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Their Lordships have held as under: "13. The residual question is what would be the appropriate direction. Considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. In some cases the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. For the purpose of recovering the amount paid from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing court concerned as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the offending vehicle shall furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the executing court shall take assistance of the Regional Transport Authority concerned. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing court to direct realisation by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle i.e. the insured. In the instant case, considering the quantum involved, we leave it to the discretion of the insurer to decide whether it would take steps for recovery of the amount from the insured." 14. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Jarnail Singh and others, (2007) 15 SCC 28 , after relying upon New India Assurance Company v. Kamla and others, (2001) 4 SCC 342 : 2001 (2) TAC 243, have ordered the insurance company to pay the amount of award to claimants and to realise the same from the insured. Their Lordships have held as under: "6. Their Lordships have held as under: "6. Under Section 15 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 a driving licence can be renewed from the date of its expiry if an application is made to it for that purpose. But the proviso to the said sub-section says that "Where the application for the renewal of a licence is made more than thirty days after the date of its expiry, the driving licence shall be renewed with effect from the date of its renewal". In the present case, the fact that the driving licence was renewed only with effect from 28-10-1996 shows that the first proviso to Section 15 (1) above quoted had applied and its corollary is that driver had no licence to drive the vehicle on the date of accident i.e. 20-10-1994. 7. There is no dispute that the policy stipulated a condition that the vehicle would not be driven by a person without a valid driving licence. It means that the policy condition had been violated. 8. This Court held in New India Assurance Co. v. Kamla, (2001) 4 SCC 342 that the insurance company is nonetheless liable to pay the compensation to the third party on the strength of the valid insurance policy issued in respect of a vehicle, but the remedy of the insurer when there was breach or violation of the policy condition was to recover the amount from the insured. Para 22 of the said judgment clarify the position and hence, it is extracted below: (SCC p. 349)." 15. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Daddappa and others v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2008 ACJ 581 have directed the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation awarded and recover the same from owner of the vehicle. Their Lordships have held as under: "26. However, as the appellant hails from the lowest strata of society, we are of the opinion that in a case of this nature, we should, in exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, direct the Respondent No.1 to pay the amount of claim to the appellants herein and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle viz., Respondent No.2, particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by him. We direct accordingly." 16. We direct accordingly." 16. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Zaharunisha and others, 2008 ACJ 1928 have directed the insurance company to satisfy the award with a right reserved to it to recover the amount from the owner after relying upon National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC). Their Lordships have held as under: "22. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the limited extent and it is directed that the appellant-insurance company though not liable to pay the amount of compensation, but in the nature of this case it shall satisfy the award and shall have the right to recover the amount deposited by it along with interest from the owner of the vehicle, viz. respondent No. 8, particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by him nor has he chosen to appear before this Court to contest this appeal. This direction is given in the light of the judgments of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Others, (2004) 2 SCC 1 and Deddappa and Others v. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2008) 2 SCC 595 ." 17. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Laxmamma and others, (2012) 5 SCC 234 have not interfered with the award whereby the insurance company was ordered to satisfy the award of compensation and then to recover the same from the insured. Their Lordships have held as under: "26. In our view, the legal position is this : where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorised insurer on receipt of cheque towards payment of premium and such cheque is returned dishonoured, the liability of authorised insurer to indemnify third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered subsists and it has to satisfy award of compensation by reason of the provisions of Sections 147 (5) and 149 (1) of the M.V. Act unless the policy of insurance is cancelled by the authorised insurer and intimation of such cancellation has reached the insured before the accident. In other words, where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorised insurer to cover a vehicle on receipt of the cheque paid towards premium and the cheque gets dishonoured and before the accident of the vehicle occurs, such insurance company cancels the policy of insurance and sends intimation thereof to the owner, the insurance company's liability to indemnify the third parties which that policy covered ceases and the insurance company is not liable to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof. 27. Having regard to the above legal position, insofar as facts of the present case are concerned, the owner of the bus obtained policy of insurance from the insurer for the period April 16, 2004 to April 15, 2005 for which premium was paid through cheque on April 14, 2004. The accident occurred on May 11, 2004. It was only thereafter that the insurer cancelled the insurance policy by communication dated May 13, 2004 on the ground of dishonour of cheque which was received by the owner of the vehicle on May 21, 2004. The cancellation of policy having been done by the insurer after the accident, the insurer became liable to satisfy award of compensation passed in favour of the claimants. 28. In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court impugned in the appeal does not call for any interference. Civil appeal is dismissed. However, the insurer shall be at liberty to prosecute its remedy to recover the amount paid to the claimants from the insured. No order as to costs." 18. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Manager National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul and another, (2013) 2 SCC 41 : 2013 (1) TAC 414 have again reiterated the principles whereby the direction has been issued to the insurance company to firstly satisfy the awarded amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Their Lordships have held as under: "20. The next question that arises for consideration is whether in the peculiar facts of this case a direction could be issued to the insurance company to first satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (respondent no. 2 herein). 21. In National Insurance Co. The next question that arises for consideration is whether in the peculiar facts of this case a direction could be issued to the insurance company to first satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (respondent no. 2 herein). 21. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and others, JT 2004 (1) SG 15 : 2004 (2) SCC 1 : 2004 (1) TAC 366, this Court was confronted with a similar situation. A three-Judge Bench of this Court held as under. "21. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position which shall have prospective effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded in terms of the decision of this Court in Satpal Singh. The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be sub-served if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, if not already satisfied, and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. We have issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in terms whereof, it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the Tribunal in such a proceeding " 22. The above position has been followed by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma & Ors., JT 2004 (7) SC 519 : 2004 (8) SCC 517 : 2005 (1) TAC 4, wherein this Court observed as under: "13. The residual question is what would be the appropriate direction. Considering the beneficial object of the Act. it would be proper for the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. In some cases the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. For the purpose of recovering the amount paid from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing court concerned as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the offending vehicle shall furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the executing court shall take assistance of the Regional Transport Authority concerned. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing court to direct realisation by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle i.e. the insured. In the instant case, considering the quantum involved, we leave it to the discretion of the insurer to decide whether it would take steps for recovery of the amount from the insured." 23. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Kaushalaya Devi and Others, 2008 (8) SCC 246 , In paragraph 15 of the Report, the Court observed as follows: "15. For the reasons aforementioned, civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10694 is allowed and civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9910 of 2006 is dismissed. In National Insurance Company Limited v. Kaushalaya Devi and Others, 2008 (8) SCC 246 , In paragraph 15 of the Report, the Court observed as follows: "15. For the reasons aforementioned, civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10694 is allowed and civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 9910 of 2006 is dismissed. If the amount deposited by the Insurance Company has since been withdrawn by the first respondent, it would be open to the Insurance Company to recover the same in the manner specified by the High Court. But if the same has not been withdrawn the deposited amount may be refunded to the Insurance Company and the proceedings for realisation of the amount may be initiated against the owner of the vehicle. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there shall be no order as to costs." 24. We are informed that by an order dated 19.01.2007 in National Insurance Co. v. Roshan Lal and Another, [SLP (C) No. 5699/2006] in light of the argument raised before a two-Judge Bench that the direction ought not to be issued to the insurance company to discharge the liability under the award first and then recover the same from the owner, the matter has been referred to the larger Bench by the following order: "Having regard to the submissions urged before us, we are of the view that this petition may be placed for consideration before a larger Bench. We notice that in some of the decisions such a direction was made in cases where the compensation had already been paid by the insurer, but there are observations therein which support the view that such a direction can be made in all cases where the owner has insured his vehicle against third party risks. In Baljit Kaur's case (supra) which is a judgment rendered by three Hon'ble Judges, such a direction was made in the special circumstances noticed by the Court in paragraph 21 of the report. There are observations in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ranjit Saikia and Ors., 2002 (9) SCC 390 which may support the contention of the petitioners before us." 25. There are observations in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ranjit Saikia and Ors., 2002 (9) SCC 390 which may support the contention of the petitioners before us." 25. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Parvathneni & Another, JT 2009 (12) SC 275 : SLP(C)....CC No. 10993 of 2009], the following two questions have been referred to the larger Bench for consideration: (1) If an Insurance Company can prove that it does not have any liability to pay any amount in law to the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act or any other enactment, can the Court yet compel it to pay the amount in question giving it liberty to later on recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. (2) Can such a direction be given under Article 142 of the Constitution, and what is the scope of Article 142? Does Article 142 permit the Court to create a liability where there is none?" 26. The pendency of consideration of the above questions by a larger Bench does not mean that the course that was followed in Baljit Kaur (supra) and Challa Bharathamma (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, 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 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 01.08.2011 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 No 1) may be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited by the insurance company before this Court along-with accrued interest The insurance company (appellant) thereafter may recover the amount so paid from the owner (Respondent No. 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 the case of Challa Bharathamma (supra)." 19. 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 the case of Challa Bharathamma (supra)." 19. In a recent judgment, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Iyyapan v. United India Insurance Company Limited and another, (2013) 7 SCC 62 : 2013 (3) TAC 392 have again reiterated that insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. Their Lordships have further held that in any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy. Their Lordships have interpreted section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Their Lordships have held as under: "17. Reading the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is evidently clear that in certain circumstances the insurer's right is safeguarded but in any event the insurer has to pay compensation when a valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer can defend the action inter alia on the grounds, namely, (i) the vehicle was not driven by a named person, (ii) it was being driven by a person who was not having a duly granted licence, and (iii) person driving the vehicle was disqualified to hold and obtain a driving licence. Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy. 18. In the instant case, admittedly the driver was holding a valid driving licence to drive light motor vehicle. There is no dispute that the motor vehicle in question, by which accident took place, was Mahindra Maxi Cab. Merely because the driver did not get any endorsement in the driving licence to drive Mahindra Maxi Cab, which is a light motor vehicle, the High Court has committed grave error of law in holding that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation because the driver was not holding the licence to drive the commercial vehicle. The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to be set aside. 19. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and hold that the insurer is liable to pay the compensation so awarded to the dependants of the victim of the fatal accident. However, there shall be no order as to costs." 20. It is evident from the definitive pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued directions after interpreting sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 21. Learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gulab Khan and others, 2010 ACJ 1280 while relying upon 2008 ACJ 2161 (SC) have held that the insurance company has to satisfy the award in favour of claimant and it was entitled to recover the amount from the insured. 22. Learned Single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sitara and others, 2010 ACJ 2145 has again reiterated the same principles after relying upon 2004 ACJ 1 (SC). 23. Division Bench of Kerala High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Alekutty Antony and others, 2010 ACJ 2481 after relying upon 2008 ACJ 268 (SC) has directed the insurance company to satisfy the award in favour of the legal heirs of the mason and then recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 24. 23. Division Bench of Kerala High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Alekutty Antony and others, 2010 ACJ 2481 after relying upon 2008 ACJ 268 (SC) has directed the insurance company to satisfy the award in favour of the legal heirs of the mason and then recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 24. The Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in Marakka and others v. Shahid Khan and another, 2011 ACJ 690 has again reiterated that the insurance company has to satisfy the award in favour of the claimants and it was entitled to recover the amount from the insured. The Division Bench has held as under: 14. RW-1 has let in evidence on behalf of the Insurance Company to contend that at the time of the accident, the driver of the auto rickshaw did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and that he was prosecuted under Section 3 read with Section 181 and Rule 94-A read with Section 177 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, respectively and therefore there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Evidence was also let into state that the seating capacity of the auto rickshaw was 5(4+1), but in the instant case it was over loaded with six persons and therefore there was a violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. Apart from the fact that the permission which was taken in respect of the auto rickshaw was restricted to only Chitradurga city, but it was plied to outside the city limits. The Tribunal while appreciating the said evidence concluded that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy inasmuch as the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence. However, in the operative portion of the order, it has directed that the Insurance Company is liable jointly and severally with the owner of the vehicle to satisfy the said award. But, from the body of the judgment of the Tribunal, it is noticed that the Tribunal has observed that the Insurance Company can recover the amount of compensation from the owner of offended vehicle. But, from the body of the judgment of the Tribunal, it is noticed that the Tribunal has observed that the Insurance Company can recover the amount of compensation from the owner of offended vehicle. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the Insurance Company is liable to first satisfy the award and liberty is reserved to the Insurance Company to recover the said compensation from the owner of the vehicle with regard to the violation that has been caused by the owner of the vehicle and which are narrated above. In view of our finding that the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the compensation from the 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle, liberty is reserved to the Insurance Company to file an appropriate proceeding and recover the same from the owner after proving the violations of the policy, including the absence of driving licence. Hence, point No. 1 is answered against the appellant-Insurance Company." 25. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. K.M. Poonam and others, 2011 ACJ 917 : 2011 (3) TAC 376 after relying upon 2004 ACJ 428 (SC) have directed the insurance company to pay the amount and recover the amount in excess of its liability from the owner in execution without filing a separate suit. 26. Learned Single Judge of Orissa High Court in Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tushar Ranjan Dash and others, 2011 ACJ 1401 : 2010 (3) TAC 858 has directed the claimants to be indemnified by the insurance company with liberty to it to recover the amount from the insured. 27. Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Chandra Devi and others, 2012 ACJ 567 has held on this issue as under: "17. In view of the above provisions, we are of the opinion that the directions given by the Tribunal requiring the Appellant- Insurance Company to make the deposit of compensation awarded under the impugned award and thereafter recover the same from the owners of the aforesaid vehicle in question, is in accordance with law, and the same does not suffer from any infirmity. 18. The above conclusion is supported by various decisions of the Apex Court: 1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 588 . 2. 18. The above conclusion is supported by various decisions of the Apex Court: 1. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 588 . 2. National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 (3) SCC 297 : 2004 (1) TAC 321 : AIR 2004 SC 1531 . 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, (2007) 3 SCC 700 : 2007 (2) TAC 398 (SC). 4. Prem Kumari and Ors. v. Prahlad Dev and Ors., 2008 (1) TAC 803 (SC). 19. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Indrajit Kaur and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 588 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court opined as under (paragraph 7 of the said AIR): 7. We have, therefore, this position. Despite the bar created by Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, the appellant, an authorised insurer, issued a policy of insurance to cover the bus without receiving the premium therefor. By reason of the provisions of Section 147 (5) and 149 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant became liable to indemnify third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered and to satisfy awards of compensation in respect thereof notwithstanding its entitlement ( upon which we do not express any opinion) to avoid or cancel the policy for the reason that the cheque issued in payment of the premium thereon had not been honoured. 20. This decision thus supports the conclusion mentioned above on the basis of Sections 147 (5) and 149 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 21. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 (3) SCC 297 : 2004 (1) TAC 321 : AIR 2004 SC 1531 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as follows (paragraph 105 of the said AIR): 102. The summary of our findings to the various issues as raised in these petitions is as follows: (i) Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 providing compulsory insurance of vehicles against third-party risks is a social welfare legislation to extend relief by compensation to victims of accidents caused by use of motor vehicles. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. The provisions of compulsory insurance coverage of all vehicles are with this paramount object and the provisions of the Act have to be so interpreted as to effectuate the said object. (ii) An insurer is entitled to raise a defence in a claim petition filed under Section 163-A or Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, interalia, in terms of Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the said Act. (iii) The breach of policy condition e.g., disqualification of the driver or invalid driving licence of the driver, as contained in Sub-section (2) (a) (ii) of Section 149, has to be proved to have been committed by the insured for avoiding liability by the insurer. Mere absence, fake or invalid driving licence or disqualification of the driver for driving at the relevant time, are not in themselves defences available to the insurer against either the insured or the third parties. To avoid its liability towards the insured, the insurer has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling the condition of the policy regarding use of vehicles by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time. (iv) Insurance Companies, however, with a view to avoid their liability must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings but must also establish 'breach' on the part of the owner of the vehicles, the burden of proof where for would be on them. (v) The Court cannot lay down any criteria as to how the said burden would be discharged, inasmuch as the same would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. (vi) Even where the insurer is able to prove breach on the part of the insured concerning the policy condition regarding holding of a valid licence by the driver or his qualification to drive during the relevant period, the insurer would not be allowed to avoid its liability towards the insured unless the said breach or breaches on the condition of driving licence is/are so fundamental as are found to have contributed to the cause of the accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply ' the rule of main purpose' and the concept of 'fundamental breach' to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149 (2) of the Act. The Tribunals in interpreting the policy conditions would apply ' the rule of main purpose' and the concept of 'fundamental breach' to allow defences available to the insurer under Section 149 (2) of the Act. (vii) The question, as to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver,(a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfill the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. (viii) If a vehicle at the time of accident was driven by a person having a learner's licence, the insurance Companies would be liable to satisfy the decree. (ix) The claims tribunal constituted under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defence or defences to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between the insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Sections 149 (2) read with Sub-section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears as land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by Subsection (3) of Section 168 of the Act the insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the tribunal. (xi) The provisions contained in Sub-section (4) with the proviso thereunder and Sub-section (5) which are intended to cover specified contingencies mentioned therein to enable the insurer to recover amount paid under the contract of insurance on behalf of the insured can be taken recourse to by the Tribunal and be extended to claims and defences of the insurer against the insured by relegating them to the remedy before regular court in cases where on given facts and circumstances adjudication of their claims inter se might delay the adjudication of the claims of the victims. 22. Proposition Nos. (vi) and (x), reproduced above support the conclusion that the direction given by the Tribunal in the award impugned in the present case is in accordance with law. 23. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmi Narain Dhut, 2007 (2) TAC 398, their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh ( supra) and held as under: 40. As noted above, the conceptual difference between third party right and own damage cases has to be kept in view. Initially, the burden is on the insurer to prove that the license was a fake one. Once it is established the natural consequences have to flow. 41. In view of the above analysis the following situations emerge: (1) The decision in Swaran Singh's case ( supra) has no application to cases other than third party risks. (2) Where originally the license was fake one, renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality. (3) In case of third party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised to recover the same from the insured. (4) The concept of purposive interpretation has no application to cases relatable to Section 149 of the Act. (2) Where originally the license was fake one, renewal cannot cure the inherent fatality. (3) In case of third party risks the insurer has to indemnify the amount and if so advised to recover the same from the insured. (4) The concept of purposive interpretation has no application to cases relatable to Section 149 of the Act. The High Courts/Commissions shall now consider the matter afresh in the light of the position in law as delineated above. 42. The appeals are allowed as aforesaid with no order as to costs. 24. In view of the above decision, it is evident that in case of third party risks, the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Ors. (supra) would apply, and the insurer has to indemnify the amount to the third party and thereafter may recover the same from the insured. 26. In view of the above decisions, it is evident that the directions given by the Tribunal requiring the Appellant- Insurance Company to deposit the amount awarded under the impugned award in the first instance, and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question, are valid and legal. 27. Sri K.S. Amist, learned Counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, however, submits that the above decisions have been given by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of Article 142 of the Constitution of India, and the Tribunal has no power to give such directions as have been given by the Supreme Court in the above decisions. 28. We have considered the above submission made by Sri K.S. Amist, and we are unable to accept the same. 29. A perusal of the various judgments of the Apex Court, referred to above, shows that the decisions are based on consideration of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 30. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 588 (supra), reference was made to the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 147 and Sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 31. Proposition Nos. 30. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Inderjit Kaur and Ors., AIR 1998 SC 588 (supra), reference was made to the provisions of Sub-section (5) of Section 147 and Sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 31. Proposition Nos. (i),(vi) and (x) in Swaran Singh's case : 2004 (3) SCC 297 : 2004 (1) T.A.C.321 : AIR 2004 S.C. 1531 (supra), lay down that in view of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Tribunal has power to give direction to the insurer to deposit the amount awarded and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 32. It will thus be noticed that the decisions referred to above are based on consideration of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The submission made by Sri K.S. Amist that the decisions are based on Article 142 of the Constitution of India cannot, therefore, be accepted." 28. Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Khatoon and others, 2012 ACJ 767 has upheld the order of Tribunal directing the insurance company to deposit the amount of compensation awarded and then to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 29. Learned Single Judge of Madras High Court in Selvi v. K. Alagarsamy and another, 2012 ACJ 945 has again reiterated the principles as under: 10. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 : 2004 (1) TAC 321 (SC), a three-Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the doctrine of pay and recover. Similarly in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla, 2001 ACJ 843 : 2001 (3) TAC 243 (SC), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan, 2004 ACJ 721 (SC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 ACJ 428 (SC), Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Brij Mohan, 2007 ACJ 1909 (SC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai, 2006 ACJ 1336 (SC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yellamma, 2008 ACJ 1906 (SC), New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Darshana Devi, 2008 ACJ 1388 (SC), reiterated the same view. A Full Bench of this court in Branch Manger, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nagammal, 2009 ACJ 865 (Madras), held that it is the discretion of the appellate court depending upon the facts of the case to decide whether pay and recover should be applied. Ltd. v. Darshana Devi, 2008 ACJ 1388 (SC), reiterated the same view. A Full Bench of this court in Branch Manger, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nagammal, 2009 ACJ 865 (Madras), held that it is the discretion of the appellate court depending upon the facts of the case to decide whether pay and recover should be applied. In the recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Angad Kol, 2009 ACJ 1411 (SC), in similar circumstances, it was held that the insurance company had to pay the amount to the claimant with liberty to recover the same from the owner and the driver of the vehicle. In the said case, the driver was owning light motor vehicle licence and he drove a heavy vehicle and caused the accident. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after coming to the conclusion that there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy and the insurance company was directed to pay the amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The facts of the case are similar to the facts of the above said judgment. 11. Apart from the above, the peculiar circumstances of this case are that the appellant lost her husband at the age of 20 years and she is an illiterate lady and also does not have any source of income, hailing from socially and financially lowest rank. If the appellant is directed to get the compensation from the owner, it will be as good as denying the compensation after all these years. Hence, the respondent No.2 is directed to pay the compensation to the appellant and recover the same from owner of the vehicle, viz., the respondent No.1. 30. Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anshu Gupta and another, 2012 ACJ 1052 has held that in case of breach of condition of policy insurance company has to satisfy the award and recover the award amount from the owner. 31. Learned Single Judge of this High Court in Man Singh v. Jamna Devi and others, 2012 ACJ 2230 has held that the Tribunal was justified in concluding that driver did not possess a valid driving licence and directing insurance company to satisfy the award and recover the amount from owner of vehicle. Learned Single Judge has held as under: "15. Learned Single Judge of this High Court in Man Singh v. Jamna Devi and others, 2012 ACJ 2230 has held that the Tribunal was justified in concluding that driver did not possess a valid driving licence and directing insurance company to satisfy the award and recover the amount from owner of vehicle. Learned Single Judge has held as under: "15. On the point as to whether the amount in question can first be recovered from the Insurance Company, in Kusum Lata & Others v. Satbir and Others, AIR 2011 SC 1234 , the Supreme Court holds that such an order in fact be passed. I, therefore, find no illegality in the award passed by the learned Tribunal below. This appeal is also dismissed. It will be open to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the other two respondents i.e. owner and driver." 32. Learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. K. Devi and others, 2013 ACJ 249 has suggested the legislation to suitably amend section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to ensure that initially claimants are paid compensation and if any violations are proved, insurance company may recover the same from the insured. Learned Single Judge has held as under: 11. It is not in dispute that the burden of proof would be on the insurance company to establish that there has been a breach of the terms and conditions of the policy under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Where the insurance company asserts that the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the burden lies on the insurance company to prove the same. It is also settled law that the provisions relating to awarding of compensation are beneficial provisions and such provisions have to be liberally construed. The main purpose of the provisions is to see that the third parties do not become the helpless victims of motor accidents. It is our experience that sometimes for attending the public meetings being organised by the political parties which are addressed by the Ministers, public is gathered in lorries (goods vehicles) to the knowledge of one and all and it is alleged that the supply of such vehicles is supervised by concerned police and RTA officials. It is our experience that sometimes for attending the public meetings being organised by the political parties which are addressed by the Ministers, public is gathered in lorries (goods vehicles) to the knowledge of one and all and it is alleged that the supply of such vehicles is supervised by concerned police and RTA officials. Thus, those who are legally bound to prevent the violations which are offences under Motor Vehicles Act are either silent spectators or a party to such violations. It is also surprising to note that a vehicle which starts from Delhi reaches Cochin and another vehicle from Bhubaneswar to Mumbai passes through several States, check posts and comes under check of several check post officials, traffic police, RTA officials and other officials, but the ground reality is that ultimately several violations will be found and with those violations the vehicle was allowed to move thousands of miles. Who is responsible? It appears that there is no proper check to prevent unlicensed persons to drive the vehicles or to prevent the violations under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. When there is no effective machinery to prevent the same and when no steps are taken to check and prevent the violations and violations continue to occur, can we say that victims of road accidents are responsible for the same? In most of the cases, the entire burden is shifted to the claimants. For several reasons the matters have been pending since several years and ultimately after 20 to 25 years we are saying to a poor widow or the children of the deceased " see the deceased had not verified before he was hit by a vehicle whether the driver's driving licence expired one day before the date of accident or not? And he ought to have chosen a vehicle which was plying without any violations? "The Tribunals went to the extent of saying that there might be collusion between the claimants (deceased) and the insured. How can we say that the dependants of the deceased colluded with the insured even before occurrence of the accident? Are we justified in denying the compensation to those victims at this stage? Everybody violates the rules. Nobody bothers to see that violations do not occur. How can we say that the dependants of the deceased colluded with the insured even before occurrence of the accident? Are we justified in denying the compensation to those victims at this stage? Everybody violates the rules. Nobody bothers to see that violations do not occur. Is it not the failure of the State machinery or is it not the failure of the whole system, which is causing this untold misery to the motor accident victims? Is it not the responsibility of entire society, the State to see that justice is done to those victims? Is it not necessary to interpret the relevant provisions keeping in view the very object of those provisions? Is it not the responsibility of legislature to amend the relevant provisions and see that all the victims of road accidents, irrespective of the fact whether they are third parties or not, get just and reasonable compensation? It is for the legislature to see that the relevant provisions of section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act are suitably amended to see that initially the claimants are paid compensation and if any violations are proved, to recover the same from insured. In spite of clear and categorical findings of the Apex Court since confusion is there, the legislature must consider all the aspects and see that the victims of road accidents ultimately get compensation. " 33. Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bilal and others, 2013 ACJ 462 has upheld the direction of the Tribunal to insurance company to pay compensation and then recover the same from owner of bus in accordance with law. Division Bench has held as under: "15. As regards issue No.6, the Tribunal held that the claimant respondent No.1 was entitled to get compensation amounting to Rs. 1,05,098 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. The Tribunal further held that the liability for payment of compensation would be on the appellant insurance company. 1,05,098 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum with effect from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. The Tribunal further held that the liability for payment of compensation would be on the appellant insurance company. However, as the vehicle in question was being plied without valid permit, and thus, appellant insurance company (sic owner of the vehicle in question) violated the terms of the insurance policy, therefore, after making payment of compensation, the appellant insurance company would be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question (i.e. respondent No.2 herein). " 34. Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. N. Appi Reddy and others, 2013 ACJ 545 has directed the insurance company to satisfy the award and then recover the amount from owner by initiating proceeding before executing court. Division Bench has held as under: "15. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants is set aside and it is held that the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to first satisfy the award. However, following the ratio in Baljit Kaur case, we direct the insurance company (appellant in C.M.A. No. 2535 of 2006 to first satisfy the award amount and recover from the owner of the vehicle by initiating a proceeding before the executing Court without filing a separate suit for the said purpose. " 35. Learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court in Clara Baracho Pinto v. Vishnu Andrade and another, 2013 ACJ 773 has directed the insurance company to pay compensation amount and then to recover the amount from the owner. 36. Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam and another, 2013 ACJ 788 has again reiterated that insurance company may seek appropriate directions from executing court for safeguarding its interest and to recover the amount from the insured. 37. Learned Single Judge of Bombay High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suhas and others, 2013 ACJ 935 after relying upon 2012 ACJ 567 has held that the Tribunal was justified in directing the insurance company to pay the compensation and then recover the amount from owner of offending vehicle. 38. Learned Single Judge of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Suhas and others, 2013 ACJ 935 after relying upon 2012 ACJ 567 has held that the Tribunal was justified in directing the insurance company to pay the compensation and then recover the amount from owner of offending vehicle. 38. Learned Single Judge of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Balbir Singh and others, 2013 ACJ 1008 has directed the insurance company to satisfy the award and then recover the amount from the insured. 39. Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sanjay Kumar and another, 2013 ACJ 1223 have held that though insurance company was not liable but ordered the insurance company to satisfy the award and recover the same from the insured. 40. Learned Single Judge of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ravinder Kumar and others, 2013 ACJ 1227 after relying upon 2004 ACJ 2094 (SC) has again reiterated that the Tribunal was justified in directing the insurance company to pay compensation and then recover the same from the owner and driver of offending vehicle. 41. Learned Single Judge of Chhattisgarh in Vikas Kumar Verma v. Lachiya Devi and others, 2013 ACJ 1697 has held that the Tribunal was justified in directing the insurance company to satisfy the award and then recover the amount from the insured. 42. In similar matter learned Single Judge of Jammu and Kashmir High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bashir Ahmad Chopan and others, 2013 ACJ 1703 , has directed insurance company to satisfy the award and then recover the amount from the insured. 43. Learned Single Judge of Jharkhand High Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ghulam and another, 2013 ACJ 1830 , after relying upon 2004 ACJ 428 (SC), has upheld the direction issued by the Tribunal to the insurance company to pay the awarded amount to the claimant and recover the balance amount from he owner. 44. Learned Single Judge of this High Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhima Devi and others, 2013 ACJ 2061 has directed the insurance company to satisfy the award with liberty to recover the amount from owner-cum-driver without filing a separate suit for recovery but by filing an execution petition. Learned Single Judge has held as under: "9. Learned Single Judge of this High Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhima Devi and others, 2013 ACJ 2061 has directed the insurance company to satisfy the award with liberty to recover the amount from owner-cum-driver without filing a separate suit for recovery but by filing an execution petition. Learned Single Judge has held as under: "9. Since the point in question in the present appeal is an identical issue, covered by Usha Devi's case, 2012 ACJ 1939 (HP) and I have no reason to differ therewith, thus following the above ratio, in the instant case, the impugned award is modified to the extent that the insurance company shall satisfy the award passed by the learned Tribunal but the insurance company is left at liberty to recover the same from the respondent No.5, without filing a separate suit for recovery, by filing an execution petition before the learned Tribunal. The appeal stands accordingly disposed of. " 45. Division Bench of Madras High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. V. Vimala and others, 2013 ACJ 2241 has upheld the order of the Tribunal directing the insurance company to satisfy the award and then recover the same from the owner-insured. 46. Learned Single Judge of Orissa High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Sukun Munda and others, 2013 ACJ 2247 has upheld the order of the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant, which it may realise from the owner. 47. Accordingly, in view of the definitive law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, cited hereinabove, there is no illegality in the award whereby the insurance company has been ordered to satisfy the award and then recover the same from the owner. 48. Consequently, there is no merit in all these appeals and the same are dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. No costs.