JUDGMENT Amitav K. Gupta, J. - I.A.No.2377 of 2018 This Interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 28 days in preferring the present appeal. 2. Notices have been issued upon the respondents but service report is awaited. 3. In view of the reasons assigned sufficient cause and reasonable explanation has been made out accordingly delay is, hereby, condoned. 4. I.A.No.2377 of 2018 is allowed and disposed off. 5. Heard the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant at the stage of admission. 6. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 16.11.2017 passed by District Judge-III-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Garhwa in M.V.Case No.13 of 2013 whereby the appellant- New India Assurance Company Ltd. has been ordered to pay the awarded compensation amount of Rs. 94,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the application. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the court below has recorded the finding that the owner of the offending vehicle had not produced the relevant document despite the specific plea taken by the appellant-Insurance Company that the vehicle was plying on the route without a valid permit. It is submitted that since the owner had failed to produce the relevant document, therefore, the liability should have been fastened on the owner of the vehicle and the appellant-Insurer, should have been exonerated. That the Tribunal has erred in directing the appellant to pay the awarded compensation and recover the same from the owner. It is urged that order to pay and recover is not vested in the Tribunal rather such a power can only be exercised by the Supreme Court under Article 142. On the above grounds it is contended that the impugned order/judgment deserves to be set aside. 8. Heard. On going through the impugned award it appears that the Tribunal has elaborately discussed and considered the evidence on record and the proposition of law. The appellantInsurance Company cannot escape the liability to pay the compensation to a third party since, the vehicle was validly insured with the appellant-Insurer. For the violation of the terms and condition of the policy it can initiate appropriate proceedings against the owner of the vehicle. The appellantInsurance Company cannot escape the liability to pay the compensation to a third party since, the vehicle was validly insured with the appellant-Insurer. For the violation of the terms and condition of the policy it can initiate appropriate proceedings against the owner of the vehicle. In a plethora of decisions, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that right to recovery cannot be disturbed and the insurer has to pay the compensation and recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. 9. Thus, in the backdrop of the settled proposition, in the considered opinion of this Court, no illegality or impropriety has been committed by the Tribunal in directing the appellant-New India Assurance Company Ltd. to pay the awarded compensation with the right to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle. The order of the Tribunal for payment of the awarded compensation amount by the appellant-New India Assurance Company Ltd. and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle does not require any interference by this Court. 10. The appeal stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 11. The Registry of this Court shall refund the deposited statutory amount in favour of the appellant-New India Assurance company Limited, on proper verification.