( 1 ) BY this common judgment, these appeals are being disposed of together. For, a short common question involved in all these appeals is as to whether the insurer can be directed to pay compenation amount determined by Motor Accident claims Tribunal, though not liable to pay due to breach of the policy condition, and thereafter to recover the same from owner of the offending vehicle.

( 2 ) THE Motor Accident Claims Tribunal held that a Matador bearing Registration No. MH-18-C-7189 and truck bearing Registration No. DL-1-GB-0314 were involved in the vehicular accident. The accident occurred due to collision of the two vehicles on Bombay-Agra road on 3. 1. 2000. There is no dispute about the fact that the vehicular accident was so ghastly that 10 persons died and 4 were injured as a result thereof. All of them were travelling in the matador vehicle at the relevant time. The matador vehicle was insured with the appellant. The deceased persons and injured claimants were travelling in the metador vehicle as gratuitous passengers. The Tribunal held that the insurance company (appellant) was not liable to pay compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased and the injured claimants. In spite of such finding, the Tribunal directed that the compensation shall be paid by the owner and the insurer jointly and severally. The Tribunal further directed that the appellant would be entitled to recover the said amount paid towards satisfaction of the award from owner of the matador vehicle.

( 3 ) THE question involved in the group of these appeals is as below : "whether the Tribunal has any statutory power to direct insurer to pay amount of compensation for which it is exonerated from liability in view of fundamental breach of the policy conditions, and direct that it may be subsequently recovered from the insured?" my finding thereon is in the negative. The reasons are discussed hereinafter.

( 4 ) MR. Gatne, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant (insurer), strenuously contended that such directions are given by the Apex Court in some of the cases, particularly in case of (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljitkaur and others), 2004 (3) Bom. C. R. (S. C.)578 : A. I. R 2004 S. C. W. 212, in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction but the same cannot be so adopted by the tribunal in the exercise of the statutory powers available under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. He would submit that the ratio of (National insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Baljit Kaur and others) (supra) cannot be outstretched to the extent that in all the similar cases, such direction can be issued by the Tribunal. He would further submit that the power of the Tribunal is circumscribed by the statutory provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the claim petitions are required to be tried as per the procedure enumerated in Chapter XII of the said Act. He contended that the tribunal committed patent error while giving such directions in the group of present appeals, when it has been held that the goods vehicle (matador) was being used against the carriage permit, in breach of terms of the insurance policy. He pointed out that the matador vehicle could not be used for transportation of gratuitous passengers or transportation of passengers for hire or reward. Mr. Gatne referred to various authorities and contended that the directions given by the Tribunal are improper and illegal. He urged, therefore, to set aside such part of the impugned award. As against this, learned Advocates Mr. Mukul kulkarni, Mr. P. S. Patil, Mr. V. D. Jomde, Mr. R. C. Patil, Mr. S. K. Shinde, Mr. V. B. Patil and Mr. S. D. Katkar would argue that the directions are quite legal and proper. It is contended that the Tribunal could ensure that the claimants were not required to unnecessarily wait for long time to get the due compensation. Mr. Kulkarni seeks to rely on (National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Prakash sakharam Dudhankar and Ors.), 2006 (1)Bom. C. R. (N. B.)412 :2006 (1