Order Heard Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Sri Amresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Respondent nos. 3 and 4/Claimants and Sri Amitabh Bhardwaj, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Respondent nos. 1 and 2 i.e. owner and driver respectively of the vehicle. 2. The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has preferred against the Judgment dated 07.07.2012 and Award dated 26.07.2012 passed by the learned 3rd Addl. District Judge-cum- Addl. Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Begusarai (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 76/10. By the said Judgment and Award, the Tribunal, while allowing the claim petition, directed the appellant to pay total compensation amount of Rs.4,36,500/- only with 6% interest per annum from the date of institution of the claim case till the date of its realisation. 3. Short fact of the case is that the husband of Respondent no.3, who was son of Respondent no.4, died on 07.06.2010 in a vehicular accident. The deceased, namely, Bipin Paswan, aged about 26 years was travelling on a tractor bearing Registration No. BR-9D/6538. Due to rash and negligent driving by the driver, the tractor dashed with a tree and husband of Respondent no.3 smashed and died on the spot itself. Regarding the occurrence, an F.I.R. vide Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.75 of 2010 was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle. Before the Tribunal, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle appeared and took a plea that the offending vehicle at the time of accident was under insurance cover of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. (the appellant in the present appeal) vide Policy No. 33109/31/2010/2169, which was valid from 3.11.2009 to 02.11.2010. Meaning thereby at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was under insurance cover. The appellant had also filed written statement and opposed the claim mainly on the ground that the tractor was not meant for carrying passenger, but it was being used by owner and driver of the offending vehicle to carry passenger and, as such, it was liability of the owner to pay compensation amount. 4. The appellant had also filed written statement and opposed the claim mainly on the ground that the tractor was not meant for carrying passenger, but it was being used by owner and driver of the offending vehicle to carry passenger and, as such, it was liability of the owner to pay compensation amount. 4. Sri Ashok Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the Judgment and Award mainly on the ground that even though the deceased was travelling on the tractor, which was insured for only agricultural purposes, the Tribunal, while directing the appellant to pay compensation amount, was required to grant liberty to the insurer for recovery of compensation amount. He further submits that there was no liability on the part of the appellant in view of number of Judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the owner and driver of the offending vehicle has orally submitted that after the accident, Respondent no.3 has solemnized second marriage and, as such, the compensation amount is required to be reduced. However, no such cogent evidence was brought on record. This submission has been vehemently opposed by Sri Amresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the Claimants. 6. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record including lower court record. Fact remains that once the owner of the vehicle has violated terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, while directing the Insurance Company to pay compensation amount, it was necessary to indicate regarding the right of recovery to the Insurance Company from the owner in accordance with law. The Court is of the opinion that that order of the Tribunal can be modified to the extent that by paying the compensation amount, the Insurance Company would be entitled to take steps for recovery of compensation from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with law. 7. The appeal stands dismissed with a direction to the appellant to pay compensation amount in terms of award to the claimants within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. In view of dismissal of the present appeal, office is directed to remit back the statutory amount, which was deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal to the court below for its payment/adjustment against the award amount. 8. In view of dismissal of the present appeal, office is directed to remit back the statutory amount, which was deposited at the time of filing of the present appeal to the court below for its payment/adjustment against the award amount. Similarly, office is required to immediately remit back the lower court record.