JUDGMENT : P.K. Lohra, J. Judgment and award dated 15.09.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sujangarh (Churu) (for short 'the learned Tribunal') is under challenge in this appeal laid at the behest of appellant-insurer by invoking Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). 2. Succinctly stated facts of the case are that the respondents claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act for claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,98,000/- under different heads. In the claim petition, besides appellant-insurer, owners and driver of the tractor No. RJ 10/RA 0407 which was involved in the accident were also arrayed as non-claimants. Attributing negligence on the part of driver of the tractor, it is averred in the claim petition that rash and negligent driving of the tractor resulted in death of 14 years old son Rakesh of the respondents-claimants. In order to quantify the compensation, respondents-claimants stated in the claim petition that deceased besides prosecuting his studies was also rendering requisite assistance in the household work and thereby he was earning Rs. 1500/- per month. As the offending tractor was insured with the appellant-insurer, the respondents claimants claimed compensation from owners, driver and insurer jointly and severally. 3. The claim petition is contested by the respondents Shiv Karan and Nawab Khan and a joint reply to the claim petition is submitted on their behalf. The appellant-insurer also joined the issue before the learned Tribunal and submitted its reply. In the return, the appellant-insurer submitted specifically that insured has violated the terms of contract of insurance and, therefore, liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened on it. 4. On the basis of pleadings of rival parties, learned Tribunal framed four issues for determination. Respondents-claimants have substantiated their claim by examining two witnesses and also submitted 13 documents which were exhibited including the autopsy report of the deceased. No evidence as such was adduced on behalf of driver and owners of the vehicle. The insurer examined one witness and produced insurance policy which was marked as Ex. A/1. 5. After conclusion of evidence of rival parties, learned Tribunal heard final arguments and decided issue No. 1 relating to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle in favour of respondents claimants and against owners, driver and insurer of the vehicle. Issue No. 2 is also decided in favour of the respondents-claimants. A/1. 5. After conclusion of evidence of rival parties, learned Tribunal heard final arguments and decided issue No. 1 relating to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle in favour of respondents claimants and against owners, driver and insurer of the vehicle. Issue No. 2 is also decided in favour of the respondents-claimants. Learned Tribunal thereafter proceeded to decide issue Nos. 3 & 4 simultaneously. While deciding issue No. 3 partially in favour of the appellant-insurer and partially against the respondents-claimants, the learned Tribunal directed the insurer to first pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In order to decide the quantum of compensation, learned Tribunal while relying on a decision of this Court quantified total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.2,25,000/-. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award. 7. In the instant case, accident occurred as back as on 26.08.2006 and the impugned award was passed on 15.09.2011. The learned Tribunal while considering the objections of the insurer about violation of the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance exonerated it from liability to pay compensation but by relying on legal precedents of the Supreme Court and this Court directed it to first pay the amount of compensation and then recover the same from the owner. Instant appeal is pending since 2012 and in all probabilities, the amount aforesaid must have been recovered by the claimants from the insurer. Even otherwise, a very innocuous direction is issued by the learned Tribunal while adhering to the prevailing law at relevant point of time and, therefore, it cannot be said that learned Tribunal has acted de hors the law or has committed any illegality which can be made subject-matter of judicial review in this appeal. Moreover, the amount involved in the matter is also a meagre sum and, therefore, I am not persuaded to interfere with the impugned judgment and award which is based on sound appreciation of evidence. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed.