K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in m. V. C. No. 559 of 1996 are awarded compensation for death of one Ramaswamy. The Tribunal directed the owner of the tractor-trailer to pay the compensation. The claim against the insurer is dismissed. The owner is in appeal seeking fastening of the liability on the insurer. The owner-appellant is dead; his L. Rs. have come on record. ( 2 ) THE material in criminal prosecution discloses that owner of the tractor-trailer was driving the vehicle without licence and caused the accident. The owner-appellant takes a plea before the Tribunal that he was not driving the vehicle. But other person was driving who was duly licensed. ( 3 ) THE Tribunal has rightly rejected the plea of the owner-cum-driver on the basis of authentic material found in the related criminal case. ( 4 ) THE appellant submits that the insurer should pay compensation to the petitioners and later on should seek reimbursement from the insured, in view of the ruling of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC ). ( 5 ) WHEN there is breach of policy conditions, the victim-petitioner can invoke the rule of 'pay and recover' against the insurer. The insured is not entitled to invoke the rule against his insurer, since, ultimately, the insured has a liability to reimburse the insurer. Therefore, the fastening of the liability on the owner appellant is sound and proper. ( 6 ) THE petitioners have stated that the income of the deceased is Rs. 1,200 p. m. The deceased is a bachelor. The parents are the petitioners. Therefore 50 per cent of the income defrayed towards personal expenses. The total loss of dependency would be Rs. 79,200 (Rs. 600 x 12 x 11 multiplier), Rs. 10,000 towards loss of expectancy and Rs. 3,000 towards funeral expenses. ( 7 ) THIS court in the case of Gulam Khader v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. , 2001 ACJ 163 (Karnataka), held that in case of death of a bachelor, compensation for loss to the estate should not be a conventional sum. Therefore, 10 per cent of the income defrayed for personal expenses should be considered as savings and thus the compensation for loss to estate would be Rs. 7,900. In all, petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. Therefore, 10 per cent of the income defrayed for personal expenses should be considered as savings and thus the compensation for loss to estate would be Rs. 7,900. In all, petitioners are entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,100 with interest at 6 per cent from the date of the claim petition till payment as against rs. 1,13,000 awarded by the Tribunal. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, appeal is partly allowed as indicated above. Appeal partly allowed.