JUDGMENT : A.C. RAO, J. 1. This is an Appeal at the instance of the appellant-United India Insurance Company Ltd. under Section 173 read with Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “the M.V. Act”) challenging the judgment and award dated 16th January, 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main) (for short “the Tribunal”) at Valsad in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 155 of 2007. 2. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that, on 29.03.2007, at around 21.30 hrs. the deceased Ranjan (son of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2-original claimants Nos. 1 and 2) was going on his bicycle on the open road before Selvas Tokarkhada Telephone Exchange. At that time, the respondent No. 3-original opponent No. 1 came in a rash and negligent manner driving his Hero Honda Motor-Cycle No. DN-09-D-5667 with excessive speed and dashed the Motor-cycle with the deceased Ranjan. As a result, the deceased Ranjan sustained grievous injuries and succumbed to the injuries. At the time of accident, he was aged only about 18 years and was working as an electrician at Selvas in the shop of Krupa Electronics and was earning Ra. 3,000/- per month. He was the only bread earner of the family and due to his accidental death, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had to suffer a huge loss. The respondent No. 3 herein is the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle in question and the appellant herein is the Insurance Company. Hence, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein-original claimants Nos. 1 and 2 had claimed Rs. 4,17,500/- by way of compensation under different heads. 3. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment and award awarded compensation of Rs. 2,12,500/- alongwith proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% p.a. from filing the claim petition till realization and directed the respondents to pay the compensation jointly and severally. 4. At the time of arguments, Mr. V.C. Thomas, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-Insurance Company has contended that the Apex Court had already referred the question of law with respect to the principle involved in “pay and recover” and the order passed by the Tribunal directing the Insurance Company to first pay the compensation to the claimants and then recover the same from the driver-cum-owner of the vehicle is not proper. 5. On the other hand, Mr. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Hiren Modi, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2-original claimants Nos. 1 and 2, has contended that there are plethora of judgments wherein such type of judgments are passed. Though served, the respondent No. 3-Driver-Cum-Owner of the vehicle, has chosen not to appear before this Court and resisted this appeal filed by the insurance company. 6. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties through video conferencing. 7. After considering rival submissions and considering the latest judgment of the Apex court in the case of National Insurance Company vs. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 . I am of the view that the order passed by the Tribunal is correct and does not require any interference. 8. In the result, the present Appeal is disposed of in limine. R&P be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.