JUDGMENT : The question arising for consideration in this appeal is whether the direction of the Tribunal to pay and recover the compensation awarded warrants interference, the insurance policy of the offending vehicle being an Act only Policy and the injured/deceased, a gratuitous passenger. The essential facts are as under; The claim petition was filed by the husband, son and daughter of Pathukkutty, who died on 23.07.2014 after falling from the scooter ridden by her son in a rash and negligent manner. As against a claim for Rs.15,00,000/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,84,000/- as compensation and directed the insurer/ appellant to effect payment and recover the amount from the owner of the scooter. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant drew attention to the decisions in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Others, [ (2003) 2 SCC 223 ] onwards, to contend that Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 speaks of only the liability which may be incurred by the owner of a vehicle in respect of death or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a ‘third party’ caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place. Reliance is placed on the Single Bench judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Daisy Paul [2021 (2) KLT OnLine 1063] to point out that, once the insurer is found not liable to indemnify the insured, there cannot be a direction to pay and recover. It is fairly submitted that an additional amount of Rs.70 was collected towards premium to cover the liability towards unnamed hirer/pillion passengers up to Rs. 2,00,000/-. Therefore, if at all, the liability of the insurer is limited to the fixed sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the question whether there can be a direction to pay and recover, even in cases where the insurer is not liable to indemnify, is referred to the larger bench of the Supreme Court and is yet to be answered. 2,00,000/-. 3. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the question whether there can be a direction to pay and recover, even in cases where the insurer is not liable to indemnify, is referred to the larger bench of the Supreme Court and is yet to be answered. It is contended that in Manager, National Insurance Co.Ltd. V. Saju P.Paul and Another [2013) 2 SCC 41], Manuara Khatun and Others v. Rajesh Kumar Singh, [ (2017) 4 SCC 796 ] and plethora of other decisions, the Supreme Court has directed the insurance company to pay and recover, de hors the injured being a gratuitous passenger and the policy, an Act only policy. 4. The legal position that an Act only policy does not cover gratuitous passengers including pillion riders and hence compensation cannot be claimed from the insurance company needs no reiteration in the light of the decisions in United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh and Others , [ (2006) 4 SCC 404 ], General Manager, United Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M. Laxmi and Others, [ (2009) 17 SCC 301 ] etc. Therefore, what remains for consideration is only whether the direction requiring the appellant to pay the compensation and recover that amount from the owner needs interference. Of course, in Daisy Paul (supra), this Court held that, the policy therein being an Act only policy and the claimant a gratuitous passenger, the direction to the insurance company to pay the compensation and recover that amount from the owner is illegal. At the same time, it is to be noted that, therein no additional premium was paid to cover the owner, as revealed from the discussion in paragraph 17 of the judgment extracted below;- “17. On an overall re-appreciation of the facts, Sections 147 and 149 of the Act and the aforecited precedents, I am of the definite opinion that the law laid by the three Judge Bench in Asha Rani and Tilak Singh, that a 'Statutory Policy' only covers death or bodily injury of a third party falling within the sweep of Section147 of the Act, is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Therefore, as additional premium was admittedly not paid to cover the first respondent, I have no hesitation to hold that the first respondent was a gratuitous passenger and was not covered by Exhibit B - 1 policy. Therefore, as additional premium was admittedly not paid to cover the first respondent, I have no hesitation to hold that the first respondent was a gratuitous passenger and was not covered by Exhibit B - 1 policy. Hence, the impugned award directing the appellant to pay compensation to the first respondent is erroneous and is liable to be set aside.” 5. On the contrary, in the case at hand, additional premium to cover the pillion rider was admittedly paid and the contention is that the coverage is limited to Rs.2,00,000/-. The said factual difference apart, the series of decisions wherein the Supreme Court had directed the Insurance company to pay and recover justify the direction issued by the Tribunal. In this context it will be profitable to read the following extract from National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Others [ (2004) 2 SCC 1 ]; “ 21. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position which shall have prospective effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded in terms of the decision of this Court in Satpal Singh [ (2000) 1 SCC 237 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 130] . The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani [ (2003) 2 SCC 223 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 493] . We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be subserved if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, if not already satisfied, and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. We have issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in terms whereof, it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the Tribunal in such a proceeding.” 6. Following Baljit Kaur (supra) , a similar direction was issued in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan and Others , [ (2004) 13 SCC 224 ] also. The relevant portion of that judgment reads as under; “ 8. Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaur case [ (2004) 2 SCC 1 : (2004) 1 Scale 124 ] that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondent claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing court concerned as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the executing court shall take assistance of the Regional Transport Authority concerned. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs.” 7. In Saju P.Paul (supra) and Manuara Khatun (supra) also, similar directions were issued. For ease of reference, the relevant portion in Manuara Khatun is extracted below; “17 . The facts of the case at hand are somewhat identical to the facts of the case mentioned supra because here also we find that the deceased were found travelling as “gratuitous passengers” in the offending vehicle and it was for this reason, the insurance companies were exonerated. In Saju P. Paul case [National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul, (2013) 2 SCC 41 : (2013) 1 SCC (Civ) 968 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 812 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 399] also having held that the victim was “gratuitous passenger”, this Court issued directions against the insurer of the offending vehicle to first satisfy the awarded sum and then to recover the same from the insured in the same proceedings.” 8. As the accident in the instant case had occurred way back in the year 2014, it will be too harsh to require the claimants to realise the compensation from the owner of the vehicle at this belated stage. For the aforementioned reasons, the appeal is dismissed.