S.B. SHUKRE, J.

1. Both these appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment as they involve an identical issue relating to jurisdiction of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to direct the insurer not found liable to pay any compensation, to first satisfy the claim and then recover the amount of compensation from the insured.

2. In F.A. No. 1043/11 the judgment and order passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 78 of 2008 by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Darwha, on 20.4.2011 has been challenged. In F.A. No. 244 of 2013, the judgment and order dated 13.7.2012 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 739 of 2009 by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Nagpur, has been assailed.

3. In both these claim petitions, the Tribunals have found that since the drivers of the offending vehicles did not possess valid and effective licence at the time of accident there was breach of terms and conditions of the respective policies and, as such, they did not fasten any liability to pay compensation upon the Insurance Company. However, the Tribunals also directed the insurer to first pay the compensation and then recover it from the insured or owner of the offending vehicles by relying upon various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also of this Court, including the judgment of Apex Court rendered in the case of National Insurance Co. vs. Swaran Singh reported in 2004 (1) T.A.C. 321 (SC).

4. I have heard Shri Kukday, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Vora and Shri Asghar Hussain, learned counsel for the respective respondents in the appeals. Now, the only point which arises for my determination is:-

“Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is vested with power to direct the insurer to first pay the amount of compensation and thereafter recover the same from the insured?”

5. Shri Kukday, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that no Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can, after having found that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation, direct the insurer to first satisfy the claim and then recover the same from the insured. He submits that it is only the Hon'ble Apex Court which can do so in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do complete justice. He has placed reliance upon the following cases:

(i) Traders Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad & another vs. Sunanda w/o Krishna Machivale & other, 2009(1) Mh. L.J. 898

(ii) The New India Insurance Co. vs. Darshana Devi & other, 2008(2) SCALE 432

(iii) State of Jharkhand & other vs. Bijay Kumar & other, 2008 (2) SCALE 438

(iv) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Brij Mohan & other, 2007(7) SCALE 753

(v) Management, Pandiyan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. vs. N. Balakrishnan, 2007(7) SCALE 758

(vi) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Kaushalya Devi & other, 2009(1) Mh. L.J. 561

(vii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Anand Sawant & other, 2009(4) Mh. L.J. 280

(viii) National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma & other, 2005 ACJ 721

(ix) Pramod Kumar Agrawal & other Mushtari Begum & other, III (2005) ACC 357 (SC)

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respective respondents submit that the issue is no longer res integra and now it is well settled that depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, a Tribunal can very well direct the insurer to first pay the compensation amount and then recover it from the insured.

7. Mr. Vora, learned counsel, placed reliance upon the following judgments:-

(i) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sindhubai w/o Kondiram Darwante & other, 2010 (3) Mh. L.J. 886

(ii) Traders Pvt. Ltd. Ahmedabad & another vs. Sunanda w/o Krishna Machivale & other, 2009(1) Mh. L.J. 898

(iii) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suhas & other, 2013 ACJ 935

(iv) National Insurance Co. Ltd. Akola vs. Vishnu Motiram Maske & another, 2010(6) Mh. L.J. 302

(v) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Bhandara vs. Suryakantabai w/o Shalikram Patle, 2008(4) Mh.L.J. 351

(vi) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Suhas s/o Sitaramj