JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been filed on behalf appellant-ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the judgment award dated 16.11.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hanumangarh in Claim Case No. 381/2010, whereby, the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 8,27,604 along with interest @ 6% as compensation to claimants in a claim application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles by the legal heirs of the deceased Shri Mangat Ram. 2. Whilst accepting the claim application, the learned Tribunal held the appellant Insurance Company and the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle (tempo) bearing Registration No. RJ-31-P-1534 jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award. 3. The appellant - Insurance Company has approached this Court by way of instant appeal challenging the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding it to be jointly and severally responsible along with the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle to satisfy the award. 4. Learned Counsel Shri Vinay Kothari appearing on behalf of the appellant urged that it is an admitted case that the vehicle involved in the accident i.e. the tempo was a transport vehicle. The driver was having a licence which authorised him to drive a LMV only. The licence was not valid for plying a transport vehicle. Thus, as per him, it being a clear case of breach of policy conditions, the insurance Company was wrongly held responsible to satisfy the award jointly and severally with the owner. 5. Learned Counsel thus prayed that the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant-Insurance Company jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the award with the owner cum driver of the insured vehicle is liable to be set aside. He submitted that in view of the admitted facts of the lease, at best a direction to pay and recover could have been issued. He further prayed that the owner of the offending vehicle be directed to furnish an undertaking that he would indemnify the Insurance Company and then only the compensation be disbursed to the claimants. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel Shri Vipin Makkad appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7, the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle (tempo) bearing Registration No. RJ-31-P-1534 and Shri S.D. Goswami appearing on behalf of the claimants vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 7. 6. Per contra, learned Counsel Shri Vipin Makkad appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 7, the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle (tempo) bearing Registration No. RJ-31-P-1534 and Shri S.D. Goswami appearing on behalf of the claimants vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant. 7. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment cum award. 8. The fact regarding the offending vehicle being a transport vehicle (passenger carrying vehicle) is admitted. The fact that the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle was having a licence authorising him to drive only a LMV is also admitted. Thus, the only question which arises for consideration of this Court is as to whether, in view of this admitted factual position, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal holding the appellant-Insurance Company jointly and severally responsible with the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle to satisfy the award can be sustained. 9. In the opinion of this Court, the conditions of the insurance policy require that in order to make the Insurance Company liable to satisfy the award, the vehicle should be used and operated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. One of the primary conditions of the insurance policy is that the driver of the offending vehicle should hold a valid licence authorising him to drive the insured vehicle as per its category. The vehicle in question was admittedly a transport vehicle meant for carrying passengers. Thus, in order to drive such a vehicle, it was essential for the driver to be holding a licence authorising him to drive a transport vehicle. As, in the case at hand, the driver cum owner of the offending vehicle was admittedly having a licence authorising him to drive a Light Motor Vehicle only, it would necessarily imply that the vehicle was being driven in the breach of policy conditions. This entitles the Insurance Company to be exonerated from the liability to satisfy the award on the ground of breach of policy conditions. 10. However, applying the principle of pay and recover as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. This entitles the Insurance Company to be exonerated from the liability to satisfy the award on the ground of breach of policy conditions. 10. However, applying the principle of pay and recover as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh reported in 2004 ACJ 1 and in order to ascertain that the rights of the claimants to receive compensation are not affected in any fashion, the Insurance Company has to be directed to pay the compensation upfront and thereafter it deserves to be given liberty to recover the same from the owner. 11. Thus, the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal in the impugned judgment holding the appellant-Insurance Company responsible to satisfy the award jointly and severally along with the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle is set aside. Now, the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle shall alone be responsible to satisfy the award. However, applying the principle of pay and recover enunciated in the case of Swaran Singh (supra), it is hereby directed that the appellant-Insurance Company shall satisfy the award upfront and, thereafter, shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner cum driver of the offending vehicle by filing execution proceedings directly before the Tribunal. 12. Now coming to the submission made by learned Counsel Shri Vinay Kothari that the learned Tribunal should be directed to procure an undertaking from the owner of the offending vehicle to the effect that he shall reimburse the decretal amount to the Insurance Company "and then only the award should be disbursed. 13. In the opinion of this Court, in cases involving a direction of pay and recover, if a pre-condition is imposed that the owner should file an undertaking that he shall indemnify the Insurance Company before disbursal of the compensation then it could lead to a situation where the decree would almost become unforceable. The Tribunal might not be in a position to procure such an undertaking from the owner. Contemplating a situation where despite the Tribunal's direction, the owner refuses to submit the undertaking then, the claimants would be left helpless and could be deprived from getting the compensation for an eternity. The situation of stalemate could continue for an indefinite period. The Tribunal might not be in a position to procure such an undertaking from the owner. Contemplating a situation where despite the Tribunal's direction, the owner refuses to submit the undertaking then, the claimants would be left helpless and could be deprived from getting the compensation for an eternity. The situation of stalemate could continue for an indefinite period. In a given case where the owner does not appear to contest the claim and the proceedings are undertaken ex parte, the execution proceeding could keep on dragging for years together for effecting service upon the owner. Thus, this Court feels that if a precondition is imposed requiring the owner of the offending vehicle to furnish an undertaking to reimburse the decreetal amount to the Insurance Company before disbursal of the award, then, it would cause unjustified, undue hardship and hurdles in the claimants' right to receive compensation. It is not a case where the Insurance Company had not collected the premium for insuring the vehicle. Nor is it a case of non-coverage. The Insurance Company has been exonerated simply on the basis of a technical defence that the driver was holding licence for driving a L.M.V. and was not authorised to drive the vehicle in question which was a transport vehicle. 14. Thus, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal should first insist upon the owner of the offending vehicle to furnish an undertaking that he shall reimburse the Insurance Company by repayment of the decreetal amount and thereafter only the Insurance Company should be called upon to satisfy the award. Rather than insisting for such an undertaking and adopting the via media of pay and recover, the better option would be that the Tribunal should insist upon the owner to directly indemnify the claimants by making payment of the decreetal amount. This is not warranted in view of the salutary provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which have been enacted i.e. to provide solace of compensation to the victims who are injured or loose their near and dear ones in road accidents. 15. This is not warranted in view of the salutary provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act which have been enacted i.e. to provide solace of compensation to the victims who are injured or loose their near and dear ones in road accidents. 15. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer that the Tribunal be directed to procure an undertaking from the owner of the offending vehicle that he shall indemnify the Insurance Company upon the Insurance Company paying the decreetal amount to the claimants. The rights of the appellant Insurance Company have already been protected by permitting it to file execution for recovery of the amount directly before the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall be at liberty to direct the vehicle owner to furnish an undertaking that he shall not alienate the vehicle involved in the accident. The Insurance Company shall also be entitled to apply to the Tribunal to confiscate the vehicle and auction the same in case the owner fails to reimburse the decreetal amount to the Insurance Company.With the above observations, the appeal stands disposed of. The stay application also stands disposed of.Appeal disposed of. *******