JUDGMENT : Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J. 1. Present appeal under section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act has been preferred on behalf of the National Insurance Company Limited, assailing the judgment/award dated 13.03.2020 passed by Sri Rajeev Ranjan, learned District Judge-III-cum-presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bokaro, in M.A.C.T. Case No.24 of 2017, whereby and whereunder the claim petition was allowed on contest and the appellant was directed to pay Rs.16,96,400/- along with simple interest @ 7 % per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition i.e., 08.02.2017 till its realization. 2. Factual background of the case giving rise to this appeal is that on 31.08.2007 at about 9 am, one Majid Ansari(now deceased) along with his grandson was going on the auto rickshaw bearing Reg. No.JH-09B-7990 and when they reached near village Mohaddih, the driver of the said auto rickshaw lost control of the vehicle due to rash and negligent driving which turned turtle causing serious injuries to Mazid Ansari, who died on 06.09.2007 at Bokaro General Hospital, Bokaro in course of treatment. In connection with the above accident Pindrajora P.S. Case No.64 of 2007 was instituted against the driver namely Manoj Kumar Singh (Opposite party No.2/Respondent No.8) of the said vehicle for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304-A of Indian Penal Code. After conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against one Manoj Kumar Singh, the driver of the said tempo owned by one Om Prakash Singh(Respondent No.7). It is further alleged that the offending tempo was insured with National Insurance Company Limited vide policy No.170401/31/07/6300004457 w.e.f. 06.09.2007 and valid up to 05.09.2008. The claimants have claimed compensation of Rs.20 lakhs along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of application till its realization. 4. Upon valid service of notice, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle bearing Reg. No.JH-09B-7990 did not appear and vide order dated 27.11.2017, they have been set ex-parte. 5. The O.P. No.3(appellant) National Insurance Company Limited appeared on 22.09.2017 and specifically denied the insurance of offending vehicle on the relevant date and time of accident with the National Insurance Company Limited rather post-facto policy was taken by the owner of the vehicle and issued by this company w.e.f 06.09.2007 to 05.09.2008. Admittedly, the accident has happened on 31.08.2007 at 9:00 am, hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against O.P. No.3. 6. Admittedly, the accident has happened on 31.08.2007 at 9:00 am, hence, prayed to dismiss the claim against O.P. No.3. 6. Learned Tribunal has settled main Issues as under:- Issue No.4: whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation if so, from whom and to what extent? Issue No.6: Whether the opposite party No.1, the owner of the temp rickshaw bearing Reg. No.JH-09B-7990 had valid insurance policy at the time of accident? While deciding issue No.6, learned tribunal has recorded specific findings that at para 15 of claim petition, claimants have specifically stated that at the time of accident the offending tempo bearing Reg. No.JH-09B-7990 was insured with O.P. No.3 National Insurance Company Limited vide policy No.170401/31/07/6300004457 w.e.f. 06.09.2007 to 05.09.2008(Ext-9). However, the O.P. No.3 in para 18 of its written statement has specifically pleaded that the above offending vehicle was not covered under the policy of insurance on the date of accident i.e. 31.08.2007 as the policy No. 170401/31/07/6300004457 had started from midnight of 05/06.09.2007 and valid till 05.09.2008. Accordingly, it was held by Learned Tribunal that at the time of accident the offending tempo bearing Reg. No.JH-09B-7990 was not insured with O.P. No.3 as the policy had commenced from 06.09.2007 and it was valid till 05.09.2008. However, as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Swaran Singh’s case, the O.P. No.3 is liable to pay compensation amount to the claimants and it will be at liberty to realize the same from the owner of the offending tempo bearing Reg. No.JH-09B-7990. The Learned Tribunal considering the available materials on record has decided issues Nos.1, 2 and 4 jointly and compensation amount was calculated to the tune of Rs.16,96,400/-(Rs.Sixteen lakhs ninety six thousand and four hundred) awarded in favour of claimants with direction to pay the same by National Insurance Company Limited and then recover from the owner which has been assailed in this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that the ratio decidendi in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and Ors. reported in AIR (2004) SC 1531 are totally inapplicable under the facts and circumstances of this case. In Swaran Singh’s case (supra), the issue was with regard to liability of insurer under Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) with proviso to sub section (4) & (5) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Swaran Singh and Ors. reported in AIR (2004) SC 1531 are totally inapplicable under the facts and circumstances of this case. In Swaran Singh’s case (supra), the issue was with regard to liability of insurer under Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) with proviso to sub section (4) & (5) of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act. The matter involved in above case regarding certain types of irregularities in driving license amounting to breach of policy conditions were dealt with and the insurance company was directed to satisfy the award under statutory liability covering third party risk at first and then to recover. In the instant case, no policy at all has been issued covering any third party risk on the date of alleged accident. Hence, no question arises to apply the doctrine of “pay and recover” and the insurance company is entitled to be exonerated from any liability to pay the compensation amount to claimants. The Learned Tribunal deciding the main issue i.e. Issue No.6 in favor of the complaints and saddled liability on the shoulder of insurance company, misconstruing the ratio of Swaran Singh’s case. As such impugned award is fit to be modified to the extent of liability of insurance company against the payment of award amount. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1-6 (claimants) has argued that the provision of M.V. Act are welfare legislation and in the interest of justice impugned order is justified. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.7 and 8 has also not disputed the impugned award. 9. The main point for determination in this case is as to whether insurance company can be held liable to satisfy an award under statutory obligation, in spite of the fact that no valid and effective policy cover certificate was in existence on the date of accident in respect of the offending vehicle? 10. Before imparting judgment on above point, relevant provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the Insurance Act, 1938 are extracted as under:- The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Section 146. 10. Before imparting judgment on above point, relevant provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and the Insurance Act, 1938 are extracted as under:- The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 Section 146. Necessity for insurance against third party risk.— (1) No person shall use, except as a passenger, or cause or allow any other person to use, a motor vehicle in a public place, unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person, as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of this Chapter: [Provided that in the case of a vehicle carrying, or meant to carry, dangerous or hazardous goods, there shall also be a policy of insurance under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 (6 of 1991).] Explanation.—A person driving a motor vehicle merely as a paid employee, while there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle no such policy as is required by this sub-section, shall not be deemed to act in contravention of the sub-section unless he knows or has reason to believe that there is no such policy in force. (2.)………… (3)………… Section 147. (2.)………… (3)………… Section 147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.— (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which— (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)— (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person 2[, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle] or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: Provided that a policy shall not be required— (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee— (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. Section 149: Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks.—(1) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of Section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) 2[or under the provisions of Section 163-A] is obtained against any person insured by the policy then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. THE INSURANCE ACT, 1938 Section 64-VB. No risk to be assumed unless premium is received in advance.—(1) No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed or unless and until deposit of such amount as may be prescribed, is made in advance in the prescribed manner. (2) For the purposes of this section, in the case of risks for which premium can be ascertained in advance, the risk may be assumed not earlier than the date on which the premium has been paid in cash or by cheque to the insurer. Explanation.—Where the premium is tendered by postal money order or cheque sent by post, the risk may be assumed on the date on which the money order is booked or the cheque is posted, as the case may be. (3)………. (4)………. (5)………. 11. A conjoint reading of aforesaid provisions explicitly reveals that Section 146 of M.V. Act makes the insurance policy of the vehicle compulsory for plying in a public place. (3)………. (4)………. (5)………. 11. A conjoint reading of aforesaid provisions explicitly reveals that Section 146 of M.V. Act makes the insurance policy of the vehicle compulsory for plying in a public place. Section 147 of the said act deals with requirements of policies and limits of liability, similarly Section 149 of the said act lays down the duty of the insurer to satisfy the Judgment/Award against persons insured in respect of third party risk. It is also obvious that payment of premium in advance for assuming the risk under the insurance policy certificate is also necessary. Therefore, existence of valid and effective policy of the vehicle on the date of accident is sine qua non for attracting the liability of insurance company to indemnify the insured under contractual obligation, in a case of third party risk. As such, in absence of valid and effective insurance policy issued under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the insurance company can not be saddled with liability to satisfy the award against the insured under the provision of Section 149 M.V. Act on doctrine of “pay and recover”. 12. In the instant case, the Learned Tribunal has failed to take into notice the relevant provisions of Motor Vehicle Act, Insurance Act and the ratio of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Swaran Singh’s case and arrived at mechanical findings holding the insurance company liable to satisfy the award in favour of claimants and to recover the same from the insured, which is not justified under law and fit to be modified in this appeal. 13. In view of the above discussion and reasons, the impugned Judgment/Award is set aside to the extent fastening the liability of Insurance Company to pay the awarded amount and recover from the owner rather the awarded amount is to be paid by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. To the above extent, the impugned award stands modified and this appeal is allowed. The appellant insurance company is at liberty to withdraw statutory amount deposited in this appeal.