JUDGMENT : Heard Shri M.N. Ahmad, learned counsel for appellant and Mrs. Vrushali Bhoyar, learned advocate holding for learned advocate for P.S. Mirache for respondent no.1. 2. None appeared for respondent no.2, the owner of the offending vehicle, though duly served with notice on final hearing. 3. Paper book is dispensed with. 4. The appeal is only on the point as to whether or not the Tribunal has power to issue direction to insurer to pay first and recover later after holding that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. According to learned counsel Shri M.N. Ahmed issuance of such a direction is not permissible as Tribunal does not have any power vested in it in this regard. He has relied upon the case of Traders Pvt. LTD., Ahmedabad and another vs. Sunanda wd/o Krishna Machivale and others, 2009 (1) MhLJ 398 . According to learned counsel for the respondent no.1 the law has been clarified by Division Bench of this Court in this very case of Traders Private Limited (supra) and that it has refused to lay down a broad proposition that in all cases, the insurer must be made to pay the entire compensation amount and then recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle. 6. On going through the judgment of Traders Private Limited, I find that submission of learned counsel for the respondent no.1 is consistent with the principles of law laid down in that case. Of course, learned counsel Shri M.N. Ahmed for the appellant has invited my attention to the observations of Division Bench in paragraph nos.56 and 59 to support his submission. But, in my view, the observations made in the judgment are to be considered in their entirety and if one does so one would find what has been canvassed on behalf of respondent no.1 is what ratio of Traders Private Limited is. In paragraph nos. But, in my view, the observations made in the judgment are to be considered in their entirety and if one does so one would find what has been canvassed on behalf of respondent no.1 is what ratio of Traders Private Limited is. In paragraph nos. 56 and 59, the Division Bench referred to various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as one judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in First Appeal No.827 of 2006 and First Appeal No.826 of 2006 decided on 04/08/2007 at Aurangabad Bench and observed that the learned Judge of Aurangabad Bench of this Court was right when he held that the direction to pay first and recover later was issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India read with Article 136 of the Constitution for doing complete justice between the parties and such powers are not vested in the High Court. One need say nothing further about the absence of power in the High Court similar to the power of the Hon'ble Apex Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. At the same time, in paragraph no.65 of the Traders Private Limited(supra), the Division Bench of this Court after considering the effect of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases including the cases of M/s National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Baljit Kaur and others, 2004 (2) MhLJ(SC) 372 : AIR 2004 SC 1340 , Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Brij Mohan and others, (2007) 7 SCC 56 , National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kusum Rai and others, (2006) 4 SCC 250 , Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanjappan and others (2004) 13 SCC 224 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Syed Ibrahim and others, 2007 ACJ 2816 also held that, it was unable to lay down as a broad proposition that in all cases, the insurer must be made to pay the entire compensation amount and then recover it from the owner of the offending vehicle. This would mean that there would be a category of cases wherein it would be permissible in law for the Tribunal to issue such kind of direction i.e. direction to pay first and recover later as issued in the present case by the Tribunal. This would mean that there would be a category of cases wherein it would be permissible in law for the Tribunal to issue such kind of direction i.e. direction to pay first and recover later as issued in the present case by the Tribunal. Therefore, now it would have to be seen whether or not the fact situation of the instant case justified issuing of such a direction. 7. On going through the facts of the case, I find that they provide sufficient reason to the Tribunal to issue such a direction. The accident in the instant case had occurred on 15/1/2007 when the claimant, a pedestrian, was walking on the road from Mouda to Nagpur. The offending vehicle bearing registration no.OR01/G002 was found to have been driven rashly and negligently. It has been further found that the driver of this offending vehicle could not control the speed and direction of the vehicle and the result was that the vehicle dashed against the claimant. The claimant sustained serious injuries and although she could recover from the accident, she could not completely recover from the injuries that she sustained. She became permanently partially (10%) disabled. The insurance company was exonerated of its liability only because of the fact that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess the valid driving license. In other words, there was a breach of condition of the insurance policy because of which the insurer was exonerated of it's liability. Such exoneration of the liability did not change the equation between the claimant and insurance company. The claimant continued to be third party to the insurance policy and the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was laid for indemnifying the third party or third property damage. These facts are distinguishable from those cases wherein the insurance company was bailed out from its liability because the claimants themselves were the tort feasors or the gratuitous passengers. In my view, the Tribunal exercised rightly its discretion to issue a direction of first pay and recover later by broadly following the principles of law laid down in Traders Private Limited (supra). I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order. There is no warrant for making any interference with the same. The point is answered accordingly. ORDER : i. Appeal stands dismissed with costs. ii. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and order. There is no warrant for making any interference with the same. The point is answered accordingly. ORDER : i. Appeal stands dismissed with costs. ii. The parties to bear their own costs.