JUDGMENT : Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J. 1. Although, the matter is appearing under the heading "for orders", by consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, the appeal itself is taken up for final disposal upon dispensation of all formalities. 2. This is a claimants appeal against judgment and award dated March 16, 2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal at Howrah, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 385 of 2005. 3. Mr. Krishanu Banik, learned advocate, appears for the claimant/appellant and argues the appeal on three points. 4. Mr. Banik, firstly, argues that when the tribunal assessed the just compensation at Rs. 2,05,200/- (Rupees two lakh five thousand two hundred) only, it ought not to have awarded Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) only as in the claim petition the sum of Rs. 1,80,000/- was claimed. 5. Secondly, Mr. Banik argues that the tribunal below ought to have awarded interest from the date of filing of the claim petition before the tribunal. 6. Lastly, Mr. Banik argues that the tribunal below erred in law in directing payment of compensation to the claimant by the owners of the offending vehicle as it was found by the tribunal that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess any valid licence. Mr. Banik submits that the Supreme Court of India in several cases directed the insurance company to pay the compensation, at the first instance and thereafter, to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. The tribunal ought to have followed the same principle. 7. Let us deal with the first two points first. It was found by the tribunal that the victim used to earn Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand) only per month as vegetables seller. The tribunal proceeded on the basis that the victim being a unskilled labourer was capable to earn Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred) only per day. The learned judge in the tribunal below, thus, applying the proper multiplier assessed Rs. 2,05,200/- (Rupees two lakh five thousand two hundred) only as just compensation, but awarded Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) only to the claimant, as it was prayed for in the claim petition. 8. 100/- (Rupees one hundred) only per day. The learned judge in the tribunal below, thus, applying the proper multiplier assessed Rs. 2,05,200/- (Rupees two lakh five thousand two hundred) only as just compensation, but awarded Rs. 1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) only to the claimant, as it was prayed for in the claim petition. 8. It seems that the attention of the tribunal was not drawn to the decisions rendered in the case of Nagappa v. Gurudayal Singh and others reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court Cases 274 and in the case of Sanjay Batham v. Munnalal Parihar and others reported in (2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 665. 9. In both the decisions, it was held that in the absence of any bar in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the tribunal or, for that reason, any competent court, is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim in an accident, when it was found that the reasonable and just compensation was higher than the amount claimed. 10. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the tribunal ought to have awarded compensation at Rs. 2,05,200/- in stead of Rs. 1,80,000/-. 11. Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 empowers the tribunal to award interest on the amount of compensation from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. This is a beneficial piece of legislation. Therefore, the tribunal ought to have awarded interest from the date of filing of the claim petition before it. 12. Now, we deal with the last argument of Mr. Banik that the tribunal ought to have directed the insurance company to pay compensation to the claimant at the first instance and, thereafter, to recover the same from the owners of the offending vehicle. Mr. Banik cites the decisions rendered in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited v. Lehru and others reported in (2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 338 and in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and others reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 297 in support of such contention. 13. The tribunal is right in observing that such directions could be passed by the Supreme Court of India in exercise of the power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Neither the tribunal nor this Court has such power to pass such direction. 14. Mr. 13. The tribunal is right in observing that such directions could be passed by the Supreme Court of India in exercise of the power conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Neither the tribunal nor this Court has such power to pass such direction. 14. Mr. Banik submits that since it is not mentioned in the judgments cited above that such power was exercised under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, it should be presumed that the Supreme Court of India has laid down a general principle. 15. We regret that we are unable to accept such contention. The insurance company indemnifies the owner provided that there has been no breach of the agreement between the owner and the insurance company. When it has been proved that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess valid licence, the insurance company could not be made liable to pay compensation. The direction to the insurance company to recover the amount paid to the claimants by initiating another proceeding against the owner of the offending vehicle will generate multiplicity of proceedings. 16. Thus, the appeal is allowed in part. The award passed by the tribunal is modified in the following manner:- (1) The claimant shall be entitled to compensation of Rs. 2,05,200/- (Rupees two lakh five thousand two hundred) only with interest at the rate of eight (8) per centum per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. (2) The owners are directed to pay the aforementioned just compensation along with interest, as above, by depositing the sum in the tribunal within two months from this date. (3) In default, however, the claimant is at liberty to take steps for execution of the award in accordance with law. 17. There will be no order as to costs. 18. Office is directed to remit the lower courts records of this case immediately. 19. Xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be made available to the applicant within seven days from the date of putting in the requisites. Appeal is Partly allowed.