JUDGMENT S.B. SHUKRE, J. 1. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as they involve an identical issue relating to jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to direct the insurer not found liable to pay any compensation, to first satisfy the claim and then recover the amount of compensation from the insured. 2. In F.A. No. 1043/11 the judgment and order passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 78 of 2008 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darwha, on 20.4.2011 has been challenged. In F.A. No. 244 of 2013, the judgment and order dated 13.7.2012 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 739 of 2009 by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Nagpur, has been assailed. 3. In both these claim petitions, the Tribunals have found that since the drivers of the offending vehicles did not possess valid and effective licence at the time of accident there was breach of terms and conditions of the respective policies and, as such, they did not fasten any liability to pay compensation upon the Insurance Company. However, the Tribunals also directed the insurer to first pay the compensation and then recover it from the insured or owner of the offending vehicles by relying upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also of this Court, including the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. vs. Swaran Singh reported in 2004 (1) T.A.C. 321 (SC). 4. I have heard Shri Kukday, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Vora and Shri Asghar Hussain, learned counsel for the respective respondents in the appeals. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is:- “Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is vested with power to direct the insurer to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same from the insured?” 5. Shri Kukday, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that no Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can, after having found that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation, direct the insurer to first satisfy the claim and then recover the same from the insured. He submits that it is only the Hon'ble Apex Court which can do so in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice. He submits that it is only the Hon'ble Apex Court which can do so in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice. He has placed reliance upon the following cases: (i) Traders Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad & another vs. Sunanda w/o Krishna Machivale & other, 2009(1) Mh. L.J. 898 (ii) The New India Insurance Co. vs. Darshana Devi & other, 2008(2) SCALE 432 (iii) State of Jharkhand & other vs. Bijay Kumar & other, 2008 (2) SCALE 438 (iv) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Brij Mohan & other, 2007(7) SCALE 753 (v) Management, Pandiyan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. vs. N. Balakrishnan, 2007(7) SCALE 758 (vi) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kaushalya Devi & other, 2009(1) Mh. L.J. 561 (vii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Anand Sawant & other, 2009(4) Mh. L.J. 280 (viii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma & other, 2005 ACJ 721 (ix) Pramod Kumar Agrawal & other Mushtari Begum & other, III (2005) ACC 357 (SC) 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents submit that the issue is no longer res integra and now it is well settled that depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, a Tribunal can very well direct the insurer to first pay the compensation amount and then recover it from the insured. 7. Mr. Vora, learned counsel, placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sindhubai w/o Kondiram Darwante & other, 2010 (3) Mh. L.J. 886 (ii) Traders Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad & another vs. Sunanda w/o Krishna Machivale & other, 2009(1) Mh. L.J. 898 (iii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suhas & other, 2013 ACJ 935 (iv) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Akola vs. Vishnu Motiram Maske & another, 2010(6) Mh. L.J. 302 (v) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Bhandara vs. Suryakantabai w/o Shalikram Patle, 2008(4) Mh.L.J. 351 (vi) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Suhas s/o Sitaramji Tambe, 2012 (6) ALL MR 164 (vii) New India Assurance Co. vs. Nandlal Lalchand Jaiswani & other, 2013(2) ALL MR 550 8. Mr. Asghar Hussain, learned counsel for the respective respondents, placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & other, 2004(1) T.A.C. 321 (SC) (ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum & other, 2009 (4) T.A.C. 1 (SC) 9. vs. Nandlal Lalchand Jaiswani & other, 2013(2) ALL MR 550 8. Mr. Asghar Hussain, learned counsel for the respective respondents, placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh & other, 2004(1) T.A.C. 321 (SC) (ii) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kusum & other, 2009 (4) T.A.C. 1 (SC) 9. Upon going through the above referred cases, I am of the view that the learned counsel for the respondents are right when they submit that the issue is now no longer res integra and now that the proposition that in suitable and fit cases a Tribunal can direct the insurer to first pay the compensation to the claimant and then recover the compensation amount from the insured has now been crystalised into a binding rule. No doubt, in the case of Traders Pvt. Ltd. v. Sunanda (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has observed in para 59 that such directions have been issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 read with Article 146 of the Constitution of India for doing complete justice to the parties and that such powers do not vest in the High Court and accordingly the Division Bench further observed that it was not possible for it to pass similar order, but, at the same time, in paragraph 56 of the judgment the Division Bench observed that such directions cannot be issued in all cases, thereby implying that where the facts and circumstances of the case warrant, the direction to first pay the compensation and then recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle can be issued. This is in fact what can be carved out from the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above. 10. In the case of Kusum (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 9, observed that whenever a direction regarding pay and recover is issued by the Tribunal, it must be held to have been done in exercise of its inherent power 11. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. 10. In the case of Kusum (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court, in para 9, observed that whenever a direction regarding pay and recover is issued by the Tribunal, it must be held to have been done in exercise of its inherent power 11. The learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sindhubai (supra), after considering the catena of judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court and also of this Court has concluded in paragraph 27 thus: “Therefore, as the legal position stands today, there is a power vesting in Tribunal and in this Court, depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case, to direct the insurer to pay compensation amount and thereafter to recover the same from the insured.” 12. In the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Suhas (supra) and in the case of New India Assurance Co. vs. Nandlal Lalchand Jaiswani (supra), the learned Single Judge of this Court has taken the same view, as taken in the aforesaid stated case of Sindhubai (supra). 13. From the above discussion, it is clear that it is not in every case that the Tribunal must direct the Insurance Company to first pay the compensation amount and then recover it from the insured, and that it can issue such a direction only when the facts and circumstances of the case before it warrant so. In other words, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to issue direction to the Insurance Company to first pay compensation amount and then recover it from the insured, however, the same has to be exercised only when the facts and circumstances of the case justify it. 14. Now the question is, whether the Tribunals, in the facts and circumstances, should have issued the direction to the appellant to first pay the compensation amount and then recover it from the insured or not. Upon going through the impugned judgments and orders, I see no error in exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned Members of the Tribunals in issuing the impugned directions. Respondents 1 to 3 in both the appeals are the widow and children of very tender age and were dependent upon the income of the deceased. Upon going through the impugned judgments and orders, I see no error in exercise of the jurisdiction by the learned Members of the Tribunals in issuing the impugned directions. Respondents 1 to 3 in both the appeals are the widow and children of very tender age and were dependent upon the income of the deceased. These respondents by a cruel stroke of destiny have been rendered hapless and would find it extremely difficult to once again knock at the doors of the Court by filing execution proceedings against the owner and recover the amount of compensation from him. On the other hand, as the Insurance Company in these appeals has sufficient means, it would be in a better position to recover the amount from the owner. Therefore, I see no illegality in directing the appellant to pay the compensation first and then recover the same from the insured. Point is answered as in the affirmative. 15. However, some modification is required in the impugned directions as the learned Member in F.A. No. 1043/11 has not categorically made it clear that the Insurance Company need not file a separate execution proceeding against the owner and that the learned Members in both cases have not taken into account the directions issued in the case of Pramod Kumar Agrawal & other vs. Mushtari Begum & other reported in III (2005) ACC 357 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has issued several directions, one of which is that before release of the amount to the claimants, the owner of the vehicle shall furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. Said directions should have been issued in both the cases and, therefore, to this extent only, there is a need to modify the impugned orders. 16. Accordingly, both the appeals are partly allowed. Confirming the direction to the appellant in each of the appeals to first pay the compensation amount and thereafter recover the same from the insured, it is directed that the appellant in each of the cases need not file execution petition against the owner and shall deposit the amounts directed to be paid to the claimants before the respective Tribunals in three months. But before release of the amounts to the claimants, the respective Tribunals on an application filed by the Insurance Company direct the concerned owner, after duly noticing him at the cost of the Insurance Company, to furnish security to the satisfaction of that Tribunal for the amounts so deposited within a period of fifteen days of receipt of the notice. The offending vehicle shall also be attached as a part of security. If there is a failure to furnish security to the satisfaction of concerned Tribunal by the concerned owner within the time so stipulated, unless extended for exceptional reasons by that Tribunal, the amount so deposited shall be released by the Tribunal and the Tribunal shall take steps against the concerned owner for recovery of the amount by following the law laid down in the case of Pramod Kumar Agrawal (supra) and the provision of Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.