JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.446 of 2010, dated 30.03.2012, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No-II), Thoothukudi. 2. It is a case of fatal accident, which took place on 19.10.2010 at about 6.00 hours at Thoothukudi to Ettayapuram main road, near north of Kurukkuchalai. 3. It is the case of the claimants before the Tribunal that on the date of accident, when the deceased was traveling as a passenger in the Ambulance bearing Registration No.09F -5757, along with his relatives, from Tirupur to Mulakkarai, the driver of the Ambulance drove the vehicle in a high speed without control, in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry bearing Registration No. TN 28 AC 1315, which was standing on the same road without any signal or indicator and caused the accident. In the said accident, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and thereafter, succumbed to the injuries. 4. The claimants filed an application in M.C.O.P.No.446 of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No-II), Thoothukudi, seeking compensation. 5. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined six witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.6 and marked twenty nine documents as Ex.P.1 and Ex.P.29. On the side of the respondents/Insurance Companies, three witnesses were examined as R.W.1 to R.W.3 and fourteen documents were marked as Ex.R1 to R14. 6. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced on either side and also appreciating the evidence on record, held that the accident occurred only, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the ambulance and therefore, directed the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the compensation and gave liberty to the appellant to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle/fourth respondent herein. 7. Against which, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed this present appeal challenging the liability. 8. 7. Against which, the appellant/Insurance Company has filed this present appeal challenging the liability. 8. When the matter came up for hearing today, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would fairly submit that the award of the lower Court may be confirmed, following the judgment in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED V. NANJAPPAN AND OTHERS reported in 2004(2) CTC 464, wherein the mode of recovery has been clearly dealt in paragraph 8 of the judgment, which reads as follows:- “Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court, we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaur's case (supra) that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondent-claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the Executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs.” 9. Heard the submissions and perused the materials available on record. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in various Judgments have formulated the policy of “pay and recovery”. In the present case, there is no reason to deviate from the principle of “pay and recovery”. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs.” 9. Heard the submissions and perused the materials available on record. 10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in various Judgments have formulated the policy of “pay and recovery”. In the present case, there is no reason to deviate from the principle of “pay and recovery”. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly directed the appellant to pay compensation at the first instance and then, recover the same from the fourth respondent. There is no error in the said finding. Therefore, I have no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. 11. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award dated 30.03.2012 made in M.C.O.P.No.446 of 2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Court No- II), Thoothukudi, is hereby confirmed. The appellant/Oriental Insurance Company is directed to deposit the entire award amount with accrued interests and costs, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, if not already deposited and in the later stage, the appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle/fourth respondent, by way of Execution Petition, without actually filing a suit as held by Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgment reported in 2004(2)CTC 464 (Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., vs. Shri Nanjappan and others). On such deposit being made, the first respondent/major claimant is permitted to withdraw his share as apportioned by the Tribunal, with accrued interests and costs, without filing any formal application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to deposit the share of the minor claimants in any one of the Nationalised Banks, in a Fixed Deposit scheme, till they attain majority. The guardian of the minor claimants, is permitted to withdraw the accrued interest once in three months directly from the bank, only for the welfare of minors. No Costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.