JUDGMENT : D.S.R. VARMA, J. 1. Heard both sides. 2. This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 2.9.1998 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Third Additional District Judge, Guntur, partly allowing M.V.O.P. No. 565 of 1996, filed u/s 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') seeking to grant a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 as compensation for the death of one Sivaiah in a road accident that occurred on 6.9.1996. 3. The appellant New India Assurance Co. Ltd. is respondent No. 3, respondent Nos. 1 to 7 are claimants and respondent No. 8 is the owner of van, respectively, in the original petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the appellant, respondent Nos. 1 to 7 and the respondent No. 8 will be referred to as 'the insurer', 'the claimants' and 'the insured', respectively. 5. This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed on two grounds, firstly, the vehicle which was required to carry only 6 passengers was carrying 12 passengers, contrary to the terms and conditions of the policy, at the time of accident, in which case, the insurer cannot be made liable and secondly, the driver had no valid driving licence. 6. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , Hon'ble Apex Court, while explaining the above-mentioned two contingencies, held that merely on the ground that there was no valid licence or no licence, the liability of the insurer cannot be absolved totally. In both the situations the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, it was held by the Apex Court that insurer shall pay the compensation initially and recover the same from the insured later. 7. Further, insofar as the second contention is concerned, it is again to be seen that this also is, admittedly, violation of terms and conditions of the policy. The policy was issued to the vehicle in question to carry only 6 passengers and in contravention of the said condition, the vehicle in question was carrying more number of passengers than the passengers prescribed. Therefore, the said action of the insured can be treated as violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. In such cases also, as held by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Therefore, the said action of the insured can be treated as violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. In such cases also, as held by the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , the insurer has to pay the compensation to the claimants initially and recover the same from the insured later. 8. Except the above-mentioned two grounds no other grounds are urged before this court, in the present civil miscellaneous appeal. 9. For the foregoing, the civil miscellaneous appeal is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. 11. However, there shall be no order as to costs.