S.U.Khan, J. - (1.) PETITIONER New India Assurance Company is behaving in a cruel manner. In an accident death occurred and claimants respondents filed claim petition. Copy of the claim petition has not been annexed, hence it cannot be ascertained that what was the amount claimed. In any case in Lok Adalat, matter was compromised and claimants agreed to receive only a meagre amount of Rs.34,000/- in full and final satisfaction of their claim. Compromise was accepted on 22.10.1989. In the end of the said order, it was mentioned that decree would be subject to production of driving licence and fitness certificate of the offending vehicle. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, New India Assurance Company that after payment of the amount to the claimants Assurance Company should have been granted right to recover the said amount from the vehicle owner and its driver in case they fail to produce driving licence and fitness certificate is quite correct, hence accepted. However, driving licence and fitness certificate of the vehicle was to be produced by the driver and owner of the vehicle and not by the claimants. This writ petition is directed against order dated 17.12.1992 passed by M.A.C.T./ II A.D.J., Azamgarh in Execution Case No.14 of 1992, Lakhraji and others Vs. Kaji Raja Abbas and others. As the amount of Rs.34,000/- had not been paid by the Assurance Company, hence recovery certificate had been issued. PETITIONER filed application for recall of the recovery certificate, which was rejected by the impugned order. Claim was for compensation of death of Lalji husband of Smt. Lakhraji and father of the other claimants. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that a similar application of the petitioner Assurance Company had already been rejected on 26.03.1992. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that earlier application was filed before issuance of recovery certificate and second application on which impugned order was passed was filed after issuance of recovery certificate. There was absolutely no question of staying recovery proceedings for the recovery of the amount, which was to be paid to the claimants by the petitioner insurance company on the ground that vehicle owner and driver were at fault. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that Assurance Company did not make any effort to ask the vehicle owner and driver to produce the fitness certificate and driving licence. In any case as the main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner should have been granted liberty to recover the amount from owner and driver as they did not produce fitness certificate and driving licence, there was absolutely no occasion either for filing application before tribunal below for withdrawing or staying recovery certificate or to file stay application in this writ petition. Through interim order dated 12.01.1993 complete stay order was granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Impugned order is modified and it is directed that after payment of the amount to the claimants, petitioner would be at liberty to recover the same from vehicle owner and driver in case they fail to produce fitness certificate and driving licence on the notice given to them by the petitioner in this regard. However, as the prayer for stay of recovery was wrongly made before the tribunal below as well as in this writ petition, hence cost of Rs.50,000/- is awarded against the petitioner (It is approximately 10% per year of Rs.34000/- for 15 years for which stay order in this writ petition remained in operation.). Let this amount of Rs.50,000/- be paid in addition to Rs.34,000/- directed to be paid through compromise decree. This total amount of Rs.84,000/- shall be deposited before the tribunal below within one month from today failing which 2% per month interest shall be payable thereupon since after one month till actual deposit/ payment. This amount of Rs.50,000/- is not recoverable by the petitioner assurance company from the vehicle owner/ driver of the vehicle.;