JUDGMENT S.G. Shah, J. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.S. Asthavadi for the appellants, learned advocate Mr. Maulik J. Shelat for respondent No.3 and learned advocate Mr. Pradeep P. Patel for respondent No.1. Perused the record. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances emerging from record, when the appeal can be disposed of by directing the respondent No.3 Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation to the original claimants and then to recover it from the owner, and more particularly, when Insurance Company has been exonerated by the Tribunal from making payment to the claimants even on such principle of pay and recover and thereby, when Tribunal has fixed the liability of opponents No.1 and 2, being driver and owner in question and thereafter, when none of them have preferred an appeal, and more particularly, when, now, claimants are unable to serve the notice upon respondent No.2, who is probably out of country, at this stage, appeal can be disposed of by dispensing the notice upon respondent No.2. However, it is made clear that if at all respondent No.2 has any grievance against such disposal, he may apply for review of this judgment, which may be decided in accordance with law. 3. The appellants herein are original claimants before the M.A.C.T. at Anand in M.A.C.P. No.540 of 2009. On 1.10.2009, victim of the road accident, namely, Jamalbhai Vora was hit by rickshaw bearing number GJ-23U-4002, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured by respondent No.3. It is the case of appellants being legal heirs of deceased of road accident that driver of the rickshaw, drove the rickshaw in rash and negligent manner with excessive speed, endangering the human lives and by violating traffic rules and thereby, rickshaw dashed with the victim on the road, which resulted into serious head injury to the victim for which he ultimately died. Because of such accident, the legal heirs have claimed Rs. 4,00,000/- as compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of rickshaw. After trial, the Tribunal has by impugned award and judgment dated 26.11.2012, though awarded Rs. 3,61,250/- as compensation with 9% interest to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased victim, the claim petition was dismissed against respondent No.3 Insurance Company on the ground that driver of the rickshaw was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive such type of vehicle. 3,61,250/- as compensation with 9% interest to be paid to the legal heirs of the deceased victim, the claim petition was dismissed against respondent No.3 Insurance Company on the ground that driver of the rickshaw was not holding valid and effective driving license to drive such type of vehicle. On perusal of impugned award, it becomes clear that though rickshaw, which was involved in the accident was passenger rickshaw i.e. transport vehicle, the rickshaw driver being opponent No.1 was not holding license with an endorsement to drive such transport vehicle, but was having license to drive only a non-transport vehicle. Therefore, relying upon several decisions, the Tribunal has exonerated the liability of Insurance Company from indemnifying the owner of the rickshaw by making payment of compensation to the claimants, who are legal heirs and dependents of the deceased victim of road accident. 4. At present, when there is no appeal either by the driver or owner against the award, whereby they are directed to make payment of compensation as aforesaid, it becomes clear that there is no issue regarding nature of incident and its effect and therefore, all those details are not much material to be reproduced herein when such details are already disclosed in pleading as well as in impugned award. 5. Therefore, the only issue raised by the appellants in this appeal is regarding the direction against the Insurance Company to first pay the amount of compensation to them, as they being third party to the vehicle and not concerned with the employment of driver or with the affairs of the owner in plying rickshaw in public place. 6. Therefore, relying upon following decisions, which confirms that in such cases, it would be appropriate to apply such principle of pay and recover, whereby the Insurance Company is to be directed to first pay the amount of compensation and then allowing the Insurance Company to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. 1. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma & Ors, (2004) AIR SC 4882; 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baljit Kaur & Ors, (2004) 2 SCC 1 ; 3. Judgment dated 06.03.2018 in Civil Appeal No.2103 of 2018 between Singh Ram vs. Nirmala; 4. Judgment and order dated 27.03.2018 In Civil Appeal No.3315 of 2018 between U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.; 5. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma & Ors, (2004) AIR SC 4882; 2. National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Baljit Kaur & Ors, (2004) 2 SCC 1 ; 3. Judgment dated 06.03.2018 in Civil Appeal No.2103 of 2018 between Singh Ram vs. Nirmala; 4. Judgment and order dated 27.03.2018 In Civil Appeal No.3315 of 2018 between U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.; 5. Judgment and order dated 17.05.2018 in Civil Appeal No.2253 of 2018 between Amrit Paul Singh and Others. vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others.; 6. National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 . 7. In view of such settled legal position, which is emerging from above-cited decisions, this First Appeal can be disposed of by directing the Insurance Company i.e. respondent No.3 herein to deposit the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the appellants claimants before the Tribunal within 12 weeks' with interest. As and when such amount is deposited, the Tribunal shall disburse it in favour of the appellants as per the award. However, it is made clear that the respondent No.3 Insurance Company shall be entitled to recover such amount of compensation from respondents No.1 and 2 in accordance with law by filing execution petition as directed in above cited cases. 8. The First Appeal is disposed of accordingly.