JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the judgment dated 1.2.2014 passed by the learned Judge, M.A.C.T., Salumber District Udaipur in n Case No. 62/2012 whereby the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. ,958/- to the respondents No. 1 to 4 claimants along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim application. Simultaneously the defence of the appellant Insurance Company regarding breach of the policy conditions was upheld and it was exonerated from the liability to indemnify the award but under the principle of pay and recover it was directed to first pay the compensation to the claimants and thereafter to recover the same from the vehicle owner and the driver. The appellant Insurance Company has approached this Court specifically against the said direction of pay and recover. 2. Mr. Vinay Kothari, learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharatham reported in 2004 ACJ 2094 and contended that before disbursing the award the owner of the vehicle be directed to execute an undertaking that he shall repay the amount to the appellant insurance Company and thereafter only the amount be disbursed to the claimants. 3. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment. 4. The defence raised by the Insurance Company that the vehicle in question was being plied without any valid permit was upheld by the Tribunal and accordingly it was exonerated from the liability to satisfy the award. However, the Tribunal applied the principal of pay and recover and directed the appellant Insurance Company to first pay the compensation to the claimants and then to recover the same from the owner and driver. 5. In the opinion of this Court, if before disbursal of the claim in cases involving a direction of pay and recover, a pre-condition is imposed that the owner should file an undertaking that he shall indemnify the Insurance Company then it could lead to a situation of absurdity. 5. In the opinion of this Court, if before disbursal of the claim in cases involving a direction of pay and recover, a pre-condition is imposed that the owner should file an undertaking that he shall indemnify the Insurance Company then it could lead to a situation of absurdity. The Tribunal might not be in a position to ensure the submission of such undertaking by the owner Contemplating a situation where despite the direction, the owner refuses to submit the undertaking then, the claimants would be left helpless and would be indefinitely deprived of compensation and could lead to a stalemate 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 situation could develop into the execution proceeding dragging or for years together for effecting service upon the owner. Thus, this Court feels that if a pre-condition is imposed requiring the owner of the offending vehicle to furnish an undertaking to reimburse the decreetal amount to the Insurance Company then, it would cause a great deal and undue hardship and hurdles in the right of the claimants to be indemnified. It is not a case that the Insurance Company had not taken the premium for insuring the vehicle. Nor is it a case of non-coverage. The Insurance Company has been exonerated simply on the technical defence that the vehicle was being driven without a valid permit. Thus, this Court is not inclined to accept the prayer made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the Court should first insist upon the owner of the offending vehicle to furnish an undertaking that he shall reimburse the Insurance Company by repayment of decreetal amount and thereafter only the Insurance Company should be made to satisfy the award. If for argument's sake the plea of learned Counsel for the Insurance Company regarding the furnishing of undertaking by the owner is accepted, then 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 instead of adopting this via media of directing the Insurance Company to pay and recover. 6. 6. Thus, this Court is not inclined to accept the argument that the Tribunal should 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. It is noticed that the rights of the appellant Insurance Company have already been protected by permitting the Insurance Company to file an application 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 till the amount is reimbursed. The Insurance Company Shall also be entitled to apply to the Tribunal to confiscate the vehicle and auction he 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. *******