JUDGMENT The New India Assurance Company Limited-appellant filed this appeal, having been aggrieved by the order/award of the learned Chairman of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool (for short, 'Tribunal'), in MVOP No.46 of 2003 dated 19.10.2004, awarding compensation of Rs.l,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) as against the claim of the 1st respondent of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only), in the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act'). 2. Heard Sri C.V. Rajeeva Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Sri M. Murali Lincoln, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent, who was served with notice, is called absent with no representation and thus taken as heard the 2nd respondent for the absence to decide on merits and perused the record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal. 3. The contentions in the grounds of appeal in nutshell are that the trial Court erred in fastening the liability on the insurance company despite the fact that the driver was not having valid driving licence to drive the tractor propelled with trailer and thereby from the breach of terms of the policy Ex.B1, the insurer is not liable and hence to allow by exonerating the liability of the insurer-appellant, whereas the contention of the 1st respondent-claimant is that the trial Court, after full dressed trial and on discussed the legal position, came to a right conclusion including in fastening the liability on the insurer of the crime vehicle and thereby for this Court while sitting in appeal, there is nothing to interfere including on the rate of interest, hence to dismiss the appeal. 4. Now, the points that arise for consideration in the appeal are: 1. Whether there is any substantial breach of terms of the policy to exonerate the insurer of the crime vehicle from liability and if so, the award of the Tribunal fastening the liability on the insured and insurer of the crime vehicle is unsustainable and requires interference by this Court while sitting in appeal including on rate of interest? 2. To what result? Point No.1: 5. 2. To what result? Point No.1: 5. A perusal of Ex.A2 charge-sheet filed against the driver of the crime tractor-cum-trailer of Ist respondent to the claim petition is under Section 338 IPC read with Section 3 read with 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and it was on his admission of the guilt during the course of examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C., he was convicted by sentencing to pay a fine of Rs.l,000/- as per Ex.A5 conviction judgment in CC No.53 of 2002. No doubt in the chargesheet but for mentioning the Motor Vehicles Act 3 read with 181 amounts the offence thereunder that was committed is mentioned. However, the fact remains from reading of Section 181 Motor Vehicles Act that it is driving a vehicle in contravention of Section 3 or 4 of Act by providing that punishment upto 3 months or fine upto Rs.500/- or with both. Coming to Section 3 of the Act which speaks of licensing of drivers with necessity of driving licence which reads: Necessity for driving licence.-(1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than a motor cab or motorcycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under subsection (2) of Section 75 unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. (2) The conditions subject to which subsection (1) shall not apply to a person receiving instructions in driving a motor vehicle shall be such as may be prescribed by the Central Government. The word effective licence to mean a valid licence regarding the period and type of the vehicle. As per the evidence of RW1, Senior Assistant of insurer of the crime vehicle, the driver N. Babu (RW2), who was examined on summons before the Tribunal, drove the tractor had no licence at all and he filed a written statement covered by Ex.B2 in the office of the insurer and thereby the insurance company is not liable. In the cross-examination, RW-1 denied the suggestions put to him of the driver got licence and there is no worthy material that could be brought on record. In the cross-examination, RW-1 denied the suggestions put to him of the driver got licence and there is no worthy material that could be brought on record. The driver N. Babu, who was examined as RW2, also stated that he was not having any licence to drive the tractor and trailer and in his cross-examination, he admitted that it is in the course of his driving the tractor-trailor bearing No.AP 21 V 2536 & 2537, PW1 sustained injuries and he submitted Ex.B2 statement to the insurance company. Ex.B2 reads that while he was driving the tractor, the accident occurred, wherein PW1 sustained injuries, who is a bank messenger, and he sustained fracture to his leg and in the Magistrate Court at Kurnool, a criminal case registered and charge-sheet filed, where he was also charged for not possessing driving licence and thereafter giving the facts at the request of the insurance company. From this evidence, it shows there was no licence to the driver of the tractor and nothing could be brought even in the cross-examination of RW2 by the claimant to show there was any licence much less by summoning R.T.O. No doubt, it is not for the claimant/3rd party so far as claiming of compensation against the owner is concerned but to indemnify the insurer from terms of the police, prima facie, it is to be shown. However, the fact remains it is highly impossible for a person who met with accident not even in anticipation to expect the person driving the vehicle and committed the crime was having licence or not. The trial Court in this regard did not discuss anything as to the liability of the insurance company but for saying at Paragraph No.9 that in view of the precedents laid down by the Constitutional Courts, the insurance company may be directed to pay the amount and to recover from the owner. There no dispute raised even by the insurance company in this regard. That finding of the trial Court is not even reflected in the operative and result portion of the award at Paragraph No.10. 6. There no dispute raised even by the insurance company in this regard. That finding of the trial Court is not even reflected in the operative and result portion of the award at Paragraph No.10. 6. The contention of the appellant insurer from the decisions reported in National Insurance Company Limited v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and others, AIR 2009 SC 208 , a two Judge Bench of the apex Court, is that the insurance company can be exonerated from liability when the driver of the crime vehicle was not having licence in force at the time of accident. In this decision at Paragraph No.5, the judgment of three Judges Bench of the apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited v. Swaran Singh and others, 2004 (2) ALD 36 (SC) = (2004) 3 SCC 297 , apart from other expressions in National Insurance Company Limited v. Kusum Rai and others, (2006) 4 SCC 250 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Nanjappan and others, (2004) 13 SCC 224 , referred and held that the insurer was liable to indemnify when there was a gap in the renewal of driving licence to the lapse of driving licence as insurer cannot be exonerated on that ground. The other decision referred is Ishwar Chandra and others v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others, (2007) 10 SCC 650 . In fact, in the three Judges Bench judgment in Swaran Singh's case (supra), the apex Court observed that the owner would be liable for payment of compensation in a case where the driver was not having a licence at all. It was the obligation on the part of the owner to take equitable care to see that the driver had an appropriate licence to drive the vehicle. The question as regards the liability of the owner vis-a-vis the driver being not possessed of a valid licence concerned, at Paragraph No.89, it was observed that Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving licence for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in subsection (2) of this section. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licences for various categories of vehicles mentioned in subsection (2) of this section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a licence for one or more of them are: (a) motorcycle without gear, (b) motorcycle with gear, (c) invalid carriage, (d) light motor vehicle, (e) transport vehicle, (f) road roller, and (g) motor vehicle of other specified description. In Ishwar Chandra's case (supra), wherein by referring to the above expressions, it was held that the insurance company would have no liability in the case of this nature. In fact, by referring to the above expressions of the apex Courts in Swaran Singh's case (supra), three Judges Bench, the Andhra Pradesh High Court in an appeal by insurance company observed in the reported decision in New India Assurance Company Limited, Tirupati v. G. Sampoorna and others, 2010 (4) ALD 586 = 2010 (5) ALT 105 , from Paragraph No.6 that insurer raised the contention of driver was not having valid licence at the time of accident and examined employee of Regional Transport Office, Tirupati, besides employee of the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle did not speak anything. No evidence produced by claimants to show there was a licence or it was even if lapsed renewed later. However, the Tribunal held that even in the absence of driving licence, insurance company has to pay and recover rather than escaping from liability for the claimants are not parties to the contract of insurance of the vehicle between insurer and insured. The High Court therefrom held that the conclusion is not acceptable from reading of Section 149(2)(a) read with Section 3 of the Act and by referring to Vidhyadhar Mahariwala's case (supra), in saying the statute itself excludes insurer's liability in such a case, thereby the fact whether the claimant being a third party is not a privy to the policy between insurer and insured has no relevance. It is, however by referring to the three Judges Bench judgment in Swaran Singh's case (supra), from Paragraph 10 apart from the earlier expressions referred therein, observed that the proposition laid down in Swaran Singh's case (supra), is referred to a Larger Bench and is still pending and in Swaran Singh's case (supra), it was held that the Tribunals and the Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction to issue any direction for pay and recovery, consider, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case and in the event such a direction has been issued despite arriving at a finding of fact to the effect that the insurer has been able to establish that the insured has committed a breach of contract of insurance under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, the insurance company shall be entitled to realize the award amount from the owner or driver, as the case may be, in execution of the same award in view of Sections 165 and 168 of the Act. It is from this, the Court in said decision from Paragraph 13 onwards observed that "In my opinion from the afore extracted passage of the judgment, it is evident that direction to the insurance company to pay the compensation does not automatically follow in every case where the insurance company is found not liable. The same depends upon the fats and circumstances of each case. In all the aforementioned cases, which were referred to by the Supreme Court, directions were given on the facts of each case and considered the fact that the provisions of the Act dealing with insurance and payment of compensation are beneficial in nature". In Paragraph 81 of the judgment in Swaran Singh's case (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the right to avoid liability in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 149 is restricted as has been discussed hereinbefore. It is one thing to say that the insurance companies are entitled to raise a defence but it is another thing to say that despite the fact that its defence has been accepted, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has power to direct them to satisfy the decree at the first instance and then direct recovery of the same from the owner. These two matters stand apart and require contextual reading. These two matters stand apart and require contextual reading. The Supreme Court in subsequent judgments have not treated the previous judgments including Swaran Singh's case (supra), as laying down unexceptionable principle that in every claim brought before the Tribunal, the insurance company should be directed to pay the compensation amount first even though its defence was found accepted, as evident from some of the later expressions like in National Insurance Company Limited v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and others, 2005 (4) ACJ 721. 7. A similar view was expressed by another two Judges Bench in Vidhyadhar Mahariwala's case (supra), wherein the insurance company was fastened with liability by the Tribunal and said award was upheld by the High Court even though driving licence of offending vehicle was not in force on the date of accident. The apex Court, while holding the insurer has no liability, permitted the claimant to recover the amount from the owner. Furthermore, in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Brij Mohan and others, 2007 (5) ALD 70 (SC) = AIR 2007 SC 1971 , while holding that. insurance company has no liability, however, invoked Articles 142 and 136 of the Constitution in directing the insurer to pay first and recover from the tractor owner. In another judgment of two Judges Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Parvathneni and another, Appeal (Civil) CC No.10993 of 2009, the apex Court doubted the correctness of the directions issued in various judgments to the insurer to pay even though not liable and therefrom formulated issues for consideration by a Larger Bench. 8. From Paragraph 20, the High Court in G. Sampoorna's case (supra), observed that on the strength of the discussion undertaken above, it is not possible for this Court to treat. the judgment in Swaran Singh's case (supra), as containing mandatory directions to the Tribunals and Courts to invariably direct the insurer to pay at first instance and recover from owner of the vehicle even though they are held not liable. Pending resolution of the issues by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court, it would be reasonable to understand the judgment in Swaran Singh's case (supra), as leaving discretion' to the Tribunals and Courts to give appropriate directions depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Pending resolution of the issues by the Larger Bench of the Supreme Court, it would be reasonable to understand the judgment in Swaran Singh's case (supra), as leaving discretion' to the Tribunals and Courts to give appropriate directions depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. By applying the ratio at Paragraph 21 of the judgment, the High Court held that the claimants already recovered some amount that was deposited by the insurance company, which holds good to withdraw, and for the rest, insurance company is not liable. 9. From the propositions of law discussed above, it is laid down in Swaran Singh's case (supra), that as each case to depend on its own facts and circumstances, the Tribunals and the Courts including the appellate Court with same powers of Tribunal under law, can give directions to pay and recover despite the fact and finding of the insurer is not liable for any of the breach of the terms of the policy from the driver driving the vehicle not with effective licence or with no licence. From this principle culled out as discussed above, coming to the latest expression in S. Iyyapan V. United India Insurance Company Limited and another, 2013 (5) ALD 62 (SC) = (2013) 7 SCC 62 , a two Judges Bench of the apex Court held that even though the insurer has taken the defence that there is a breach of conditions of the policy excluding from driving by a person, who is not duly licensed, the crime vehicle met with accident, when third party has statutory right to recover compensation from insurer and it was for insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of amount paid to third party in case there was any breach of condition of insurance policy. No doubt as contended by the appellant insurer in the present facts, it is not even of defective licence but a case of no license. However, the principle of law laid down in the expressions referred above, particularly from Swaran Singh's case (supra) and the latest expression in S. Iyyapan's case (supra), it makes no difference as to no licence or defective licence but for to consider in facts and circumstances of each case. 10. However, the principle of law laid down in the expressions referred above, particularly from Swaran Singh's case (supra) and the latest expression in S. Iyyapan's case (supra), it makes no difference as to no licence or defective licence but for to consider in facts and circumstances of each case. 10. Having regard to the above and keeping the above principles in mind, as the trial Court already ordered within the discretion in exercising the factual matrix of the case in directing the insurer to pay and recover, this Court while sitting in appeal not chosen to interfere to reverse the said conclusion of the Tribunal having been exercised within its discretion from the proposition of law discussed above as there is nothing to show such exercise of discretion by the Tribunal was contrary to law or unsustainable and as such, merely because another view is possible, the appellate Court shall not readily interfere. However, coming to the rate of interest at 9% awarded by the Tribunal concerned as rightly contended, the apex Court in T.N. State Corporation Limited v. S. Rajapriya, (2005) 6 SCC 236 , Rajesh v. Ranabir Singh, 2013 ACJ 1403 and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 (3) ALD 83 (SC) = 2009 ACJ 1298 , categorically held by discussing the prevailing rates of interest and steep fall in the bank rate of interest felt reasonable to award 7½ % p.a. Thereby, for no reasons assigned by the Tribunal even to exercise the discretion to award 9% interest, the same is reduced as the appellate Courts have discretionary jurisdiction to reduce or modify the rate of interest keeping in view the steep fall in the bank rate of interest as laid down in D.D.A. v. Joginder S. Monga, (2004) 2 SCC 297 . 11. Accordingly and in the result, the appeal is allowed in part while confirming the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal however with the direction to the insurer to pay and recover from the insured (owner) and driver by execution in the same O.P. proceedings without need of fresh claim, however, by modifying the rate of interest from 9% to 7½ % from date of claim petition till realization. It is made clear from the settled expressions of the apex Court in United India Insurance Company Limited v. Lehru, 2003 (3) ALD 20 (SC) = (2003) 3 SCC 338 = 2003 SCC (Crl.) 614 and Nanjappan's case (supra), that the insurer is entitled, while deposing the amount payable, if any, if not already paid, to approach the Tribunal to direct the R.T.A. concerned not to register any transfer of the vehicle and to seek for attachment of the crime vehicle or other property of the insured as an assurance for execution and recovery in the same proceedings by filing execution petition and also can ask the Tribunal not to disburse the amount (but for to invest in a bank) till such attachment order is made and made absolute from appearance and hearing. However, after the same, the Tribunal cannot withhold the amount of the claimants, if there is any necessity to permit for any withdrawal and to invest the balance in fixed deposit in bank. There is no order as to costs in the appeal.