Judgment The National Insurance Company Limited rep. by its Branch Manager, Branch Office, Adilabad Versus Habeeb khan & Another The National Insurance Company Limited (2nd respondent in the claim petition) filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the Order/Award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-District Judge, Adilabad (for short, ‘Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.628 of 2007 dated 05.10.2010 awarding compensation of Rs.60,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) out of Rs.1,00,000/- against the 2nd respondent and out of which Rs.6,000/- to the 1st respondent with interest at 6%p.a. and directing the 2nd respondent to pay entire compensation awarded inclusive of liability of Rs.6,000/- of 1st respondent-owner and then recover the same from him, against the respondent Nos.1 and 2-claimant and owner of crime vehicle under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2. Heard Smt. Ramani Jonna, learned standing counsel for the appellant, Sri Bandi Prasada Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. The 2nd respondent-owner of crime vehicle is called absent with no representation and thus taken as heard for the absence to decide on merits and perused the record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal. 3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal as well as submissions during course of hearing in nutshell are that the award of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case, that the Tribunal from the contention of Insurer of there is no any special coverage but for Act policy under which the third party satisfied but confined to Rs.6,000/- only to that extent liable as per Ex.A.7 policy marked by the claimant and not beyond, while so appreciating however directed to pay amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/- which includes that liability of Rs.6,000/- and to recover back the non-liability amount of Rs.54,000/-with interest from the insured. The appeal by the Insurance company-2nd respondent impugning the said findings is award of the Tribunal besides the quantum excessive and erroneous directing to pay and recover even the liability confined to only Rs.6,000/- thereby set aside the award exonerating the liability of the Insurer over and above Rs.60,000/- for no question to pay and recover arises. 4. The appeal by the Insurance company-2nd respondent impugning the said findings is award of the Tribunal besides the quantum excessive and erroneous directing to pay and recover even the liability confined to only Rs.6,000/- thereby set aside the award exonerating the liability of the Insurer over and above Rs.60,000/- for no question to pay and recover arises. 4. It is the contention of the claimant as 1st respondent to the appeal since 2nd respondent to the appeal-the owner of the vehicle remained absent with no contest and also before the Tribunal, that the Tribunal under Section 149 read with 168 of the MV Act got the discretionary power to pay and recover even found for any reason the Insurer is not liable and thereby the Tribunal once exercises its discretionary power in giving direction for pay and recovery this Court while sitting in appeal against it simply because the Insurer impugned the same cannot readily interfere hence to dismiss the appeal and for that contention placed reliance upon Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mahammad Salim ( 2013(6) ALT 484 ). 5. Now the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether the Tribunal is not correct in directing the Insurer to pay and recover the claim over and above its liability of Rs.6,000/- under Ex.A.7 policy for the remaining Rs.54,000/- also while holding not liable and having any such discretionary power under Section 149 and 168 of the Act and with what observations? 2. To what result? POINT-1: 6. The facts of the case are that on 05.06.2007 at about 10.30 since the negligence of the driver of GSR Travels Bus, bearing No.AP.12.T.4515 belongs to 1st respondent insured with 2nd respondent covered by Ex.A.7 policy, parked in front of shop of the claimant without precautionary measures by keeping something under the tyres to control motion, the bus ran towards the shop of the claimant, due to that the counter, shop, air compressor, machine with cart, master guage, Television, tube lights etc. to a tune of Rs.60,000/- which are his sole livelihood were damaged, which occurrence is covered by Ex.A.1 FIR and Ex.A.2 charge sheet. to a tune of Rs.60,000/- which are his sole livelihood were damaged, which occurrence is covered by Ex.A.1 FIR and Ex.A.2 charge sheet. The Tribunal from the oral and documentary evidence came to conclusion of PW1-claimant incurred loss, awarded compensation of Rs.60,000/-towards damages to the claimant and against the 1st respondent-owner of the crime bus to the whole amount and out of the same the liability of the 2nd respondent-appellant herein at Rs.6,000/- with interest at 6%p.a. and the 2nd respondent to pay the whole amount with interest which is inclusive of Rs.6,000/- to the claimant and then the 2nd respondent is entitled to recover the rest of the amount paid by it from the 1st respondent-owner of the vehicle. 7. The fact that the accident was the result of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime bus of the claim petition-1st respondent insured with the claim petition 2nd respondent and the fact that the Ex.A.7 policy relied on by the claimant of the crime bus covered third party risk under Act policy for Rs.6,000/- not in dispute. The only dispute is whether the Tribunal within its scope got any power or discretion to issue direction to pay and recover while holding the policy covers the risk only for Rs.6,000/-anything beyond and the proposition laid down in Mahammad Salim (supra) is the same. In fact, from the above proposition from paras 9 and 10 speaks under Section 168 of the Act, the Tribunal got power and jurisdiction to issue direction to Insurer to satisfy the award in first instance in favour of third parties even though it is not liable to pay compensation on ground of breach of terms and conditions of policy, if there is a valid third party insurance and then recover the amount so paid from the Insured. Here the crux is whether there is a valid third party insurance to the extent of direction to pay and recover but undisputedly not as it is not a comprehensive policy of coverage on third party property risk as per Ex.A.7 but for confined to Rs.6,000/-under the Act as statutory limit. Here the crux is whether there is a valid third party insurance to the extent of direction to pay and recover but undisputedly not as it is not a comprehensive policy of coverage on third party property risk as per Ex.A.7 but for confined to Rs.6,000/-under the Act as statutory limit. When such is the case, when the policy is not comprehensive and not covers risk and otherwise there was a breach to exonerate the Insurer for any reason from violation of the terms of the policy or permit or licence or the like within the question of giving direction to safeguard interest of the third party under Section 149 read with 168 arises. Here that is not the case. Admittedly having regard to the above, the Tribunal is wrong in giving such a direction as the policy covered by only Rs.6,000/-and nothing beyond and when such is the case for Tribunal having so conclude there is no basis as the question of granting anything more does not arise. Accordingly point No.1 is answered. Point No.2: 8. In the result, appeal is partly allowed by setting aside the direction to the appellant herein to pay and recover so far as the amount out of the claim of Rs.60,000/- over and above Rs.6,000/-for Rs.54,000/- is set aside as unsustainable. There is no order as to costs.