JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant insurance company and Sri S.D. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the claimant respondents. 2. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 29.8.2014 passed in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 82/70/2013 (Rati Bhan Singh and another v. Rajiv Lochan Shukla and others) whereby a sum of Rs. 1,72,500/- with 7% interest from the date of presentation of the claim petition has been awarded. 3. The tribunal by the impugned award has directed that the compensation awarded shall be paid and deposited by the appellant insurance company which may be recovered by it from the owner of the vehicle as the vehicle was covered by a valid insurance policy but was driven in breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. 4. In view of the fact that the liability to pay compensation ultimately rests upon the owner of the vehicle and the appellant insurance company has been given right to recover it on payment, no loss is likely to be suffered by it. The compensation payable under the award is actually payable by the owner and not by the appellant insurance company. In this sense of the matter, appellant insurance company is not a party aggrieved by the impugned award so as to entitle it to maintain the appeal. 5. Sri Sinha submits that once the tribunal holds that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, no liability not even to pay the compensation at the initial stage could have been fastened upon the appellant insurance company. Any direction of the Apex Court in this regard directing the insurer to pay and recover are directions under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and have no binding precedent as has been recently held by the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White washer), 2014 (142) FLR 638. 6. 6. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court no doubt lays down that any direction issued by the Apex Court in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India does not constitute a binding precedent as they are directions for the proper administration of justice so as to do the complete justice between the parties but the question is whether the directions of the Supreme Court to pay and recover given to the insurer are under Article 141 or 142 of the Constitution of India. 7. The Supreme Court in New India Assurance company, Shimla v. Kamla, 2001 (2) TAC 243 (SC), probably for the first time while considering the liability of the insurer vis-a-vis the owner of the vehicle considering the various provisions of the Act held that when there is a valid insurance policy in connection with a particular vehicle, the burden is upon the insurer to compensate the third party irrespective of any breach or violation of the conditions of the policy but may recover the said amount from the insured policy holder. The Court therefore directed the insurer to first pay and then to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. The aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court was under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and not by way of doing complete justice between the parties under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 8. The aforesaid decision has the approval of the three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swarn Singh and others, 2004 (1) TAC 321. 9. Recently, the Supreme Court in Manager National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul and another, 2013 (1) TAC 414 (SC), irrespective of the fact that the Division Bench of the Supreme Court in some matter has referred the question regarding liability of the insurance company to first pay the compensation and then to recover it from the owner held that the principal which has been followed for long regarding first pay and then recover, cannot be held to be unjustified. 10. It is settled law that mere reference of any question of law to a larger bench would not have the effect of disturbing the law which has been settled by the Court until and unless the reference is answered to the contrary. 11. 10. It is settled law that mere reference of any question of law to a larger bench would not have the effect of disturbing the law which has been settled by the Court until and unless the reference is answered to the contrary. 11. The principle where the vehicle is covered by insurance policy, the insurer is liable to compensate the loss in the first instance and then may recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle in case of breach of any conditions of the policy, as such is binding precedent laid down under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and is not by way of special circumstances to do the complete justice under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. 12. Accordingly, the above principle is a binding principle. I am therefore of the view that the appellant insurance company is not a party aggrieved by the impugned award so as to maintain the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. ——————