JUDGMENT : 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the Award and Decree, dated 24.04.2012 made in MCOP.No.366 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge), Thanjavur. 2. The 1st respondent here is the claimant in MCOP 366 of 2008, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, claiming Rs.42,00,000/-, as compensation, towards the injuries caused to her in the accident happened on 11.02.2008, at about 10.00 a.m., while she was sitting in the Tractor bearing Registration No.TN-49-Q- 7112, which was driven in rash and negligent manner by its driver. The 2nd respondent herein is the owner of the said Tractor, who was set ex-parte before the Tribunal. The appellant herein is the Insurer of the said Tractor of 2nd respondent herein. The petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. In order to prove the claim, P.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked, on the side of the claimant/injured. R.Ws.1 & 2 were examined and Exs.D1 and D2 were marked on the side of the Insurer/Insurance Company. 4. After hearing and considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor caused the accident and the insurer is not liable to indemnify the vehicle owner/first respondent and since the claimant is the 3rd party/victim, who sustained injuries in the accident, the Insurer/2nd respondent is liable to pay compensation and entitled to recover the same from the vehicle owner/1st respondent. 5. Aggrieved by the Award, ordering the Insurer to pay the compensation and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the tractor/first respondent, the 2nd respondent Insurance Company filed this appeal before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer contended that in cases of gratuitous passengers travelling in goods vehicles pay and recover directions cannot be given and the appellant is not absolutely liabile to pay compensation. 7. Admittedly, the injured travelled in the Tractor owned by the 2nd respondent herein and was insured with the appellant and the insurance policy taken by the 2nd respondent herein in respect of the said tractor was in force on the date of the accident. 7. Admittedly, the injured travelled in the Tractor owned by the 2nd respondent herein and was insured with the appellant and the insurance policy taken by the 2nd respondent herein in respect of the said tractor was in force on the date of the accident. The learned counsel appearing for the vehicle owner and the claimant/injured contended that the Tribunal has rightly considered the liability of the insurer after taking to the evidence on record, fixing the insurer to pay the compensation adhering the principles of “pay and recover” and the award passed by the Tribunal needs no interference. 8. The alleged accident took place on 11.02.2008, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of tractor, which was insured at that time. The claimant, who travelled in the said tractor sustained injuries, as decided by the Tribunal and the said fact is also not disputed in this appeal. The case records were called for, but the part three records, including the deposition of witnesses and exhibits were destroyed. Both the counsels on record in this appeal has not chosen to file any copy of those documents. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/insurer submitted that the sitting capacity of the tractor is only one and the passengers are not permitted to travel either in the tractor or in the trailer and the driver of the tractor has committed the wrong permitting the claimant/injured to travel in the tractor and hence, the appellant Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation to the claimants and also cannot be directed to indemnify the vehicle owner. The learned counsel for the appellant relies a Full Bench Judgment of the Principal Bench of this Court in Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. The learned counsel for the appellant relies a Full Bench Judgment of the Principal Bench of this Court in Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Nagammal and Others reported in [2009 (1) TN MAC 1], in which the directions to use the principle of 'pay and recover' is ordered, as follows:- “(i) Where, by relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Satpal Singh's case, either expressly or even by implication, there has been a direction by the Trial Court to the Insurance Company to pay, the appellate court is obviously required to consider as to whether such direction should be set aside in its entirety and the liability should be fastened only on the driver and the owner or whether the Insurance Company should be directed to comply with the direction regarding payment to the claimant and recover thereafter from the owner. (ii) No such direction can be issued by any trial court to the Insurance Company to pay and recover relating to liability in respect of a passenger traveling in a goods vehicle after the decision in Baljit Kaur's case merely because the date of accident was before such decision. The date of the accident is immaterial. Since the law has been specifically clarified, no trial court is expected to decide contrary to such decision. (iii) Where, however, the matter has already been decided by the trial court before the decision in Baljit Kaur's case, it would be in the discretion of the appellate court, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the doctrine of 'pay and recover' should be applied or as to whether the claimant would be left to recover the amount from the person liable i.e., the driver or the owner, as the case may be.” 10. In the Judgment of this Court in the Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Pudukottai Vs. Chitra and others reported in [2011 (1) TN MAC 636], wherein it has been held as follows:- “Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 147 - Tractor not attached with Trailer - Deceased travelling in Tractor and while getting down from Tractor, driver moved the vehicle suddenly and deceased caught in back wheel of Tractor and lost life - Insurer, held, cannot be held liable - Owner alone liable - Finding of Tribunal with regard to liability of Insurer set aside.” 11. An unreported Judgment of this Court, dated 05.01.2012 in [CMA(MD)No.781 of 2011] between the Divisional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd., Madurai and Sivagnanam and Another, it has been held that “the victim was an unauthorized passenger in the goods carriage vehicle and as such, there is a statutory violation. The question of directing the insurance company to pay the amount to the victim and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle does not arise and the insurance company is exonerated from its liability in paying the compensation amount.” 12. In the Judgment of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs. Pauldurai reported in [2012 (1) TN MAC 545] wherein it has been held that, 'Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 147 - Gratuitous passenger travelling in Tractor - Insurer, held, not liable to pay compensation - Supreme Court in Natthi Bai followed - Gratuitous passenger travelling in Tractor not entitled to compensation - Insurer exonerated from its liability. 13. In this case on hand, the tractor was not fitted with trailer on the date of accident. It is admitted that the injured travelled by sitting in the tractor, on the date of accident. It is not denied that the sitting capacity of the tractor is only one. The injured/claimant is not the driver of the said tractor. The claimant is the unauthorized passenger, travelled in the said tractor. The claimant was permitted by the driver of the said tractor to travel in the tractor on the date of occurrence. Tractor is not a goods vehicle. Permitting a person to travel in the tractor is an illegal act and also against the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Nobody should be permitted to sit in the tractor other than the driver, since the tractor is a single seated vehicle for the driver alone. It is stated that the injured was sitting in the tractor and fell down from the tractor, while the 2nd respondent driver was driving the vehicle, in a rash and negligent manner, on the pitch of the road. The unreported Judgment of this Court, dated 24.11.2017 made in CMA(MD)No.720 of 2015 in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai Vs. S.Rajakannu and others relied on by the counsel for the claimant, is not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. 14. The unreported Judgment of this Court, dated 24.11.2017 made in CMA(MD)No.720 of 2015 in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., Chennai Vs. S.Rajakannu and others relied on by the counsel for the claimant, is not applicable to the facts of the present case on hand. 14. Considering the above facts and circumstances of the case and also the disseizin relied on by the appellant/Insurance Company, this Court is exonerate the Insurance Company to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the principles of 'pay and recover'. The owner of the vehicle/2nd respondent alone is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed by setting aside the findings of the Tribunal with regard to the liability of the appellant Insurance company to pay the award. It is open to the claimant/injured to claim the award amount, which was awarded by the Tribunal, from the owner of the vehicle/2nd respondent herein by filing appropriate proceedings, in the manner known to law. The appellant Insurance Company is permitted to withdraw the amount already deposited, if any, before the Tribunal. However, there shall be no order as to costs.