JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Palak Thakkar for the appellant and learned advocate Mr. Bharat B. Shah with learned advocate Mr. Nirav C. Shanghavi for respondents original claimants. Rest of the respondents are though served remain absent. Perused the record as well as record and proceedings, received from the tribunal. 2. The appellant is original respondent No. 2 in different claim petitions preferred by different victims of the same road accident, wherein same vehicle was involved and, therefore, when the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad has decided all such claim petitions by common judgment and award dated 30.06.2004, in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 1341, 412, 1331 and 1334 of 2002 and when all these appeals are arising out the consolidated judgment in different claim petitions, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 3. It is undisputed fact that all the claimants were travelling in vehicle No. GJ-1HH-620 on 27.05.1999 and when such vehicle has crossed Bareja Chowkdi, National Highway No. 8, because of rash, negligent and speedy driving so as to endanger the human life by the driver of such vehicle, the vehicle has, on his own, turned turtle and went upto 150 feet in such turtle position, which resulted into serious and grievous injuries to the occupants of the vehicle, who are claimants in different claim petitions. Therefore, when claim petitions are filed against owner and insurer of such vehicle, they are liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The tribunal has, after allowing both the sides to adduce their evidence allowed all the claim petitions by awarding different amount of compensation considering their injuries, treatment and other relevant evidence. 4. However, the appellant insurance company has challenged the award contending that the tribunal has misread and misinterpreted the ratio laid-down in case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Baljit Kaur, (2004) 2 SCC 1 though the tribunal has specifically endorsed in award in different claim petitions that the insurance company can recover the awarded amount from the owner of the vehicle, but thereby the tribunal has directed the appellant insurance company to first pay the awarded amount to the claimants and then recover it from the owner because the vehicle is private vehicle. 5. 5. When owner has not challenged such award and when the tribunal has cleared the position that considering the nature of the vehicle, the insurance company has to pay the amount to the claimants and then to recover from the owner, practically, there remains nothing in the appeal, more particularly, even on scrutinizing the record, I do not find any irregularity or illegality in the amount of compensation awarded to the different claimants which is purely on evidence on record. Therefore when I am in agreement to the compensation awarded to each claimant, I do not see any reason to re-discuss all such evidences and reasons, which are very well disclosed and discussed in the impugned award, except to endorse that the amount awarded by the tribunal is just and reasonable and, thereby, it does not require any interference in such appeal. 6. However, the insurance company is also relying upon the following decisions: (1) New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Asharani, (2003) ACJ 1 (2) United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Jyotibala, (2012) 1 GLH 733 6.1 In both the above decisions, it is held that in case of breach of policy condition, insurance company cannot be held liable. There is no doubt about such legal preposition and, therefore, in view of following decisions which confirms that in such cases, it would be appropriate to direct the insurance company to first pay the amount of compensation to the claimants and then recover it from the owner of the vehicle. 7. Considering the settled legal position, as laid-down in following decisions, it is now clear that in such cases, when there is an award in favour of the claimants, it would be appropriate to direct the insurance company first to pay the awarded amount with liberty to recover such amount, which it has paid as per the award, from its insured i.e. owner of the vehicle in question. The principal is now very well known as pay and recover. (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. 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 & Ors. vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. (6) National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh, (2004) 3 SCC 297 8. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the view that the direction to insurance company of the concerned vehicle they being the insurer of the offending vehicle which was found involved in causing accident due to negligence of its driver needs to be issued directing the insurance company to first pay the awarded sum to the appellant (claimant) and then to recover the paid awarded sum from the driver and owner of the vehicle involved in execution proceedings arising in this very case as per the law laid down in para 26 of Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Saju P. Paul, (2013) 2 SCC 41 . 9. In view of above facts and circumstances and decisions cited herein above, appeal is dismissed accordingly. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier shall stand vacated. Record and proceedings if any called for be sent back to the tribunal forthwith.