JUDGMENT 1. Appellant insurer has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, Act) challenging judgment and award dated 29.08.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No. 1, Bhilwara (for short, learned Tribunal) in Accident Claim Case No. 428/2013 ( Smt. Ratni & Ors. v. Ram Chandra & Ors. ). 2. Learned Tribunal, by the impugned judgment and award, adjudicated three claim petitions simultaneously, arising out of a solitary accident. Out of the three, Claim Petition No. 429/2013 was dismissed, whereas Claim Petition Nos. 428/2013 & 430/2013 were partly allowed. 3. Learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim of respondents-claimants quantified and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,89,160/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition. Although, learned Tribunal decided issue No. 2 in favour of insurer, but finally directed it to first pay the compensation and then recover the same from insured. 4. The precise argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that though cover-note for the policy of insurance vis-a-vis vehicle Tata Scorpio Jeep No. RJ30-U-0034 was issued in favour of insured on 31.07.2008, but the cheque given by insured against premium amount was returned unpaid by the Bank on 04.08.2008. With these arguments, learned counsel submits that appellant-insurer cannot be held liable to pay compensation and even the order to the extent of pay and recover is also not sustainable. 5. The learned Tribunal, while examining that issue has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Laxmamma & Ors., (2012) 5 SCC 234 and New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Rula, (2000) 3 SCC 195 . By relying on the ratio decidendi of these binding precedents, the learned Tribunal in its discretion has directed appellant-insurer to first pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from insured. In my view, the finding recorded by learned Tribunal and issuance of direction to pay and recover, in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be faulted. Therefore, no case for interference with the impugned judgment and award is made out. 6. Consequently, the appeal fails and same is hereby rejected summarily.