JUDGMENT Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. 1. The M.V.O.P Nos. 787, 789, 793, 788, 786, 794 of 2007 respectively which are impugned in these appeals are filed against the owner and insurer of van bearing No. AP 9 X 6283 as respondents 1 and 2 besides the owner and insurer of the auto bearing No. AP 23 W 0879 as respondents 3 and 4. They were allowed by separate orders respectively by the learned II Additional District 6t Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Sangareddy awarding respective compensation finding that though the auto was against the capacity of 3 + 1 carrying 9 persons besides the driver, there is no other proof to say there is negligence on the part of the driver of the auto from the F.I.R. and charge sheet filed against the driver of the van and thereby the respondents 1 and 2 i.e. owner and insurer of the van are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation claimed respectively. Having been aggrieved by the said awards impugning the same, the insurer of the van, National Insurance Company, who was the 2nd respondent to the respective claim petitions preferred the appeal by showing the injured claimant as the 1st respondent, but for MACMA No. 615 of 2011 against O.P. No. 793 of 2007, the claimants are parents of the deceased girl, as respondents 1 and 2, owner and insurer of the auto bearing No. AP 23 W 0879 as respondents 3 and 4. Since the common question of law and fact involved in all these cases arising out of the same accident and the claimants are almost the injured persons traveling in the auto, these are taken up together. 2. Since the common question of law and fact involved in all these cases arising out of the same accident and the claimants are almost the injured persons traveling in the auto, these are taken up together. 2. The contentions in the grounds of appeal filed by the insurer of the van, which are common in all cases, are that the Judgment and decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and ought to have dismissed the claim petitions contending that the Tribunal failed to note despite the fact that the auto rickshaw driven by owner cum driver, 3rd respondent to the respective claim petitions against the capacity of 3 + 1 carried 9 persons besides the driver, by putting extra wooden plank on the back side of the auto to accommodate four extra passengers to sit and also two more on either side of driver with seating capacity of one man for driver alone. It is also contended that when these facts are crystal clear, the insurer and owner cum driver of the auto also are responsible as there is contributory negligence per se and that the Tribunal went wrong in saying that Van driver alone at fault merely because charge sheet and FIR are against the driver of the van instead to fix contributory negligence on the auto driver cum owner and insurer hence to set aside the award fastening liability on the owner and insurer of the van alone and apportion the liability of 50% each on the driver cum owner and insurer of the auto and van respectively by relying upon two decisions of this Court in the course of hearing of arguments that are of Shamshuddin and another v. Atta Anaruddin and another 2006(6) ALT 147 where for involvement of van and lorry respectively apportioned each 50% contributory negligence from proceeding in opposite direction and in other case Md. Rasheed v. Susheela Agarwal and another 2004(4) ALD 597 for involvement of the lorry and auto with overloading apportioned liability of contributory negligence each 50%. It is also the contention in the grounds of appeal as well as oral submissions that no driving licence of the driver of the vehicle produced for competence to drive, and no permit of the vehicles even filed. It is also the contention in the grounds of appeal as well as oral submissions that no driving licence of the driver of the vehicle produced for competence to drive, and no permit of the vehicles even filed. The other contentions are quantum of compensation arrived respectively by the Tribunal is exorbitant and excessive to reduce. Hence sought for to allow the appeals by fixing contributory negligence of both vehicles and to apportion the liability and also to reduce the quantum in arriving just compensation. 3. Whereas it is the contention of the insurer of the auto 4th respondent in all the appeals, but in MACMA No. 615 of 2011, 5th respondent, owner cum driver of the auto having been served remained exparte, that in the very claim petition, there was no specific prayer against the auto driver cum owner and insurer and originally the claim filed was against the owner and insurer of the van and on the counter filed by them of non joinder of necessary parties with contributory negligence attributed subsequently impleaded the owner cum driver as well as the insurer of the auto by not even amended the prayer specifically against them and the evidence on record also on behalf of the claimants respectively was by relying on F.I.R. and charge sheet against the van driver and have not attributed to the auto driver cum owner and insurer of the auto as well as the contentions in the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant, insurer of the van cannot be allowed to contend to implicate any liability on the insured and insurer of the auto. It is also the contention that the driver cum owner of the auto was not having any valid driving licence to drive the auto, which is overloaded against the capacity of 3 + 1 with 9+1 including him as violation of the permit conditions and contrary to policy terms and thereby the insurer of the auto is liable to be exonerated on that ground also for the maximum liability under the policy is only for three passengers besides the owner cum driver of auto and nothing more to indemnify, hence to exonerate the insurer of the auto totally. 4. 4. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the owner of the auto that if at all to be made liable with any contributory negligence, it all depends on the size of the vehicle, condition of the road and manner of occurrence and the material on record is bereft of the particulars, that the auto is smaller in size when compared to the van and further contended that there is no evidence to say that the auto driver is unskilled person without knowing the driving of the auto as a result of which accident was occurred and in the absence of which mere overloading is not per se suffice to presume any contributory negligence and further contended that if at all to make liable the owner cum driver of the auto from the date of their impleadment orders for interest liability on just proportionate contributory negligence to arrive if any. 5. Whereas it is the contention of the respective claimants that R.W.2 on behalf of the insurer of the auto and R.W.1 on behalf of the insurer of the van respectively examined and so far as the auto is concerned, it is not the contention of no license at all but for saying he got no endorsement of transport driving license, having been possessed light motor vehicle non transport license and even that is not proved by issuing any notice to the owner cum driver of the auto, that once it is not proved can be taken for all purposes of possessing valid driving licence and thereby the auto owner cum driver as well as the insurer cannot be exonerated on any count, but for if at all from such overloading beyond the capacity including from overloading is not a breach to avoid liability or to exonerate the insurer, as laid down in B.V. Nagaraju v Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 1996 ACJ 1178, as per the subsequent expression of the Apex Court in NIC vs. Anjana Shyam & others 2007 (7) SCC 445 : ACJ 2129 (SC) to consider highest claims out of the total claims to the extent liable by the insurer to fix responsibility on the insurer and for the lesser remaining non liability claims to fix responsibility on the owner and by pooling the total amount to apportion, proportionate to the quantum of compensation arrived in all the respective claims, so to fix and not to exonerate. It is also contended that the Tribunal has held that the van driver is at fault and not the auto driver and the same is also clear from the charge sheet and FIR, nothing to interfere by this court while sitting in appeal merely because some other opinion is also possible and hence to dismiss the appeal. 6. Perused the material on record. The parties hereinafter are referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeals. 7. Now the points that arise for consideration in these appeals are: 1. Whether the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime van alone or also that of the driver cum owner of the auto while both vehicles proceeding in opposite direction with proportionate contribution and if so to what extent of liability on the respective driver cum owner and insurer of the two vehicles? 2. If so, whether the award of the Tribunal fixing liability on the owner and insurer of the van alone is unsustainable and requires interference by this court while sitting in appeal? 3. If there is contributory negligence beyond the seating capacity of the auto is 3+1, 9 persons, besides the driver, were proceeding on the auto proved from the facts before the Tribunal, whether the Insurer can be exonerated therefrom and from the contention of the driver has no valid transport cum non transport license and with what observations including from the principle laid down in Anjana Shyam held by the Apex Court? 4. To what combined result? 8. POINTS-1 to 3: As the points 1 to 3 are inter related from same factual matrix, to avoid repetition of facts and for convenience, these are taken up together. 4. To what combined result? 8. POINTS-1 to 3: As the points 1 to 3 are inter related from same factual matrix, to avoid repetition of facts and for convenience, these are taken up together. The fact that the accident was occurred on 06.5.2007 when the respective claimants including the deceased girl in O.P. No. 793 of 2007 covered by MACMA No. 615 of 2011 total 9 in number were travelling in the auto bearing No. AP 23 W 0879, by collision of both vehicles i.e. the auto and opposite coming vehicle DCM van AP 9 x 6283 near Mupparam village is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the auto owner is himself driving the auto and he is also one of the injured and his claim is covered by MA CMA No. 614 of 2011 against O.P. No. 791 of 2007. In fact the auto driver cum owner as claimant in O.P. No. 791 of 2007 deposed more particularly in the cross examination that in the auto he was taking 9 persons by fixing a wooden plank on the right side of the auto to accommodate 4 persons and inside 3 persons were accommodated and allowed, on either side of his driving seat meant for him alone, two persons and thereby these facts are also proved from the material on record for the purpose of the appeals. As per the evidence produced by the insurer of the auto from RTA record, he got tight motor vehicle non transport and the auto is light motor vehicle transport and the same is also not in dispute for purposes of the appeals, apart from the fact that as injured in his claim he did not produce any driving license to say that there was subsequent endorsement obtained for transport driving of the light motor vehicle before date of accident. From this when both vehicles are coming in the opposite direction, he himself being the driver cum owner of the auto allowed as many as 9 persons of whom two persons on either side of his driving seat even meant for one that is a clear case of impossible to control in the case of exigency and but for his contribution to the accident, it could be averted as the things itself speak. No doubt, the extent of contributory negligence of both the vehicles to arrive depends upon factual matrix of each case for no standard of percentage from size of the vehicles, but for also from the material placed if any like the damage caused to the respective vehicles on which side or middle and size of the respective vehicles, the place of accident on road at middle or on a side and which vehicle on totally wrong side or both equally contributed based on scene of observation report and sketch as to the exact place of occurrence, width of the road and condition of the road as well near the scene of offence. Here nothing was elicited much less any such record is produced in this regard including by the insurer and owner of the auto to say van driver alone at fault and in the absence of which merely because FIR registered against van driver from or on behalf of injured persons for van driver or auto driver did not choose to report to police or the charge sheet filed not shown the auto driver also as co-accused, the contributory negligence of the auto driver cum owner cannot be allowed to escape. Thus as discussed supra, from contribution of driver of the van as well as the driver cum owner of the auto to the accident proved from this factual matrix, coming to consider the extent of contribution as size of the vehicles also is criteria in fixing contributory negligence and out of the two decisions of the High Court relied upon by the appellant in Md. Rasheed and Shamsuddin; in the decision of Md. Rasheed, there also the accident occurred was due to collision of auto and lorry while proceeding in opposite direction, there also the auto was overloading against the capacity of 3, with nine passengers, for the accident occurred proved as on the middle of the road; contributory negligence fixed was equal at 50% each. Said contributory negligence of 50% each was arrived therein even the auto was smaller in size to the goods vehicle in the factual matrix of the accident was occurred on the middle of the road. Said contributory negligence of 50% each was arrived therein even the auto was smaller in size to the goods vehicle in the factual matrix of the accident was occurred on the middle of the road. Such particulars are not here but for the size of vehicles as to say the auto and van from what is discussed supra however to say the accident can be taken as on the middle of the road as but for that the driver of the auto could not have sustained injuries besides the other persons on either side of him and the auto also could not have been damaged on front side totally. Having regard to the auto, it is a fit case to fix more particularly from the size of the vehicles, 40% contributory negligence on the part of the auto driver and 60% contributory negligence on the part of the medium goods vehicle driver. 9. Now coming to the fact that the capacity of auto is a three seater of 3 + 1 and as many as 9 persons were travelling out of whom 6 claims are filed and the other 3 persons of the auto either not injured or otherwise not filed any claims undisputedly so far thus to say only 6 claims that arise for consideration. Out of six claims covered by the common order in all these appeals, only three maximum claims the insurer is liable to indemnify as per the Apex Court's expressions in Anjana Shyam (supra). 10. Now before coming to the quantum of compensation, it is the contest by the insurer of the auto that the driver possessed light motor vehicle non transport, whereas he driven the passenger auto light motor vehicle transport. It is the contention of the claimants that it is only in use the difference as to transport or non transport and not in size much less in skill thereby that cannot be taken as any substantial violation even he was the driver cum owner. No doubt violation is a violation but for to say that violation is not so fundamental to exonerate the insurer so also from overloading but for to confine to the maximum claims from the facts and law discussed supra apart from the legal position in this regard discussed herewith regarding to driving license violations. No doubt violation is a violation but for to say that violation is not so fundamental to exonerate the insurer so also from overloading but for to confine to the maximum claims from the facts and law discussed supra apart from the legal position in this regard discussed herewith regarding to driving license violations. i) In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala & Others AIR 2009 SC 208 the two judge bench of the Apex Court in this decision by referring to National Insurance Company Limited vs. Swaran Singh & Others (2004) 3 SCC 297 : 2004-ACJ-1 apart from other expressions in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Kusum Rai & Others (2006) 4 SCC 250 and Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanjappan & Others (2004) 13 SCC 224 : 2004-SAR(civil)-290 and Ishwar Chandra & Others vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Others (2007) 10 SCC 650 : 2007(4) Scale 292 held that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner, when the driver has no license to drive the crime vehicle. ii) In Ishwar Chandra (supra) it was held by the two judge bench that the driver's licence when expired 30 days prior to the date of accident and no renewal application filed even by date of accident to say a renewal dates back to date of application, it is suffice to hold the driver has no valid licence as on date of accident. iii) In Kusumrai (supra) it was held by the two judge bench that, the vehicle was used as taxi (commercial) and the driver is required to hold appropriate licence but not having valid commercial vehicle licence and from that breach, the insurer is held entitled to rise the defence. iv) In Vidhyadhar Mahariwala (supra)--in para -8 of the judgment, it was observed that in Swaran Singh (supra)whereupon it was held as follows:- 45. Thus, a person whose license is ordinarily renewed in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules framed thereunder, despite the fact that during the interregnum period, namely, when the accident took place and the date of expiry of the license, he did not have a valid license, he could during the prescribed period apply for renewal thereof and could obtain the same automatically without undergoing any further test or without having been declared unqualified therefore. Proviso appended to Section 14in unequivocal terms states that the license remains valid for a period of thirty days from the day of its expiry. 46. Section 15 of the Act does not empower the authorities to reject an application for renewal only on the ground that there is a break in validity or tenure of the driving license has lapsed, as in the meantime the provisions for disqualification of the driver contained in Sections 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24 will not be attracted, would indisputably confer a right upon the person to get his driving license renewed. In that view of the matter, he cannot be said to be delicensed and the same shall remain valid for a period of thirty days after its expiry. v) In Ram Babu Thiwari vs. United Insurance Company Limited 2008 ACJ 2654 by referring to Ishwar Chandra, Kusum Rai, Swaran Singh (supra) among other expressions, held that when a driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was expired about three years prior to accident and it was got renewed only subsequent to the accident it was held as violation of the terms of the policy by referring to Kusum Rai (supra) followed in Ishwar Chandra (Supra) observed that in view of the Section 15(1) of the Act even the license after period of expiry remains valid for thirty days to renew meantime any renewal subsequently would be renewed from the date of renewal only to say as on the date of accident even be subsequent renewal long after thirty days expiry of the statutory period not a valid renewal to say no valid license to exonerate the' Insurer and thus exonerated the insurer. vi) The above decisions other than Swaran singh (Supra) mostly speak of no valid license as on the date of accident though earlier it was from its lapse and timely non-renewal or holding one license not valid to drive other type of vehicle. vii) On perusal of Swaran Singh (Supra) referring earlier expressions speaks several categories of cases as to such imperfect license or lapsed license with no license in subsistence or a fake license or even driver with no license at all. vii) On perusal of Swaran Singh (Supra) referring earlier expressions speaks several categories of cases as to such imperfect license or lapsed license with no license in subsistence or a fake license or even driver with no license at all. An extreme case of this type of driver having no license at all driving the vehicle knowingly without even application for license and without experience to drive even admittedly and in his saying it is to the willful and conscious knowledge of the owner as a fundamental breach. Coming to the cases no license is concerned:- viii) In Sardari vs. Sushilkumar 2008(1) LS-SC-177 the facts show one Jageeru, Tonga driver on 10-2-85 met with accident when it colluded with tractor and he later was expired on 15-2-85 and the Insurance Company in the counter contended that the driver of the tractor did not hold valid and effective licence and there is no liability to indemnify. In the course of trial, the said tractor driver Sushil Kumar categorically deposed that he does not know how to drive a tractor as he never even tried to learn driving tractor, that he had not been possessing any licence to drive a tractor and he did not even apply for licence. It was therefrom, the Tribunal held that admittedly when the driver of crime tractor was not knowing to drive tractor and not even having any licence at all to drive, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify owner of the tractor. The appeal was also dismissed confirming the said finding of the tribunal when preferred by driver and owner of the tractor for no appeal by claimants. In that factual context it was observed in para 6 of the judgment by the Supreme Court that, time and again made distinction between cases where III party is involved vis-a-vis owner of the vehicle was involved. The object of Sections 147 & 149 of the MV Act enacted was social justice doctrine envisaged in the preamble of the constitution, however, the Act itself provides where the insurance company can avoid its liability. The avoidance of such liability by insurer largely depends upon violation of conditions of the Insurance Contract. Where the breach is ex-facie apparent from the record, court need not fasten liability on the insurer. The avoidance of such liability by insurer largely depends upon violation of conditions of the Insurance Contract. Where the breach is ex-facie apparent from the record, court need not fasten liability on the insurer. In certain situations, however, the court while fastening liability on insured, may direct the insurer to pay to the claimants and recover the same from the insured. ix) In UIIC vs. Gianchand (1997)7 SCC-558, it was observed that when the insured handed over the vehicle to an un-licenced driver, insurer would be exonerated from liability to meet III party claims. x) In Swaran Singh (three judges bench-supra) it was laid down that the owner of the vehicle has a responsibility to see that no vehicle is driven except by a person who doesn't satisfy Sections 3 & 4 of the MV Act. In a case where the driver admittedly did not hold licence and the same was allowed consciously to be driven by the owner of the vehicle by such person insurer in its defence succeed to avoid liability. The matter, however, may be different where a disputed question of fact arises as to driver had a licence or owner committed a breach of the policy terms by consciously allowing a person to drive without having a valid driving licence. xi) In NIAC vs. Prabhulal (2007) 13 SCC 246 it was a claim arisen out of Consumer District Forum holding no liability of the insurer against the National Consumer Commission's verdict fixing responsibility. xii) In Prem Kumari vs. Prahlad Dev 2008(1) Scale 531 it was also observed that owner of the vehicle cannot contend no liability to verify the fact as to whether the driver possessed a valid licence or not. xiii) By referring all these expressions at Para 9 of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Saradari (supra), the Apex Court did not choose to interfere with the finding of the tribunal confirmed by the High Court, in not chosen to make liable the insurer. xiv) In Surina Durvasulu Vs. xiii) By referring all these expressions at Para 9 of the Judgment of the Apex Court in Saradari (supra), the Apex Court did not choose to interfere with the finding of the tribunal confirmed by the High Court, in not chosen to make liable the insurer. xiv) In Surina Durvasulu Vs. Bhavanarayana Murthy 2008 ACJ 654 Para 14 it was held that when the driver had no valid driving licence to drive tractor and the charge sheet also mentions a penal provision for violation of the same in driving with no licence and nothing deposed by owner despite contention of Insurance Company, that he has taken all necessary precautions to entrust the vehicle to a person who had valid driving licence, insurance company not made liable holds good. The other type of cases are driver possessing a fake license and not any real license to drive and driving the vehicle entrusted by owner it all depends upon the facts as to the owner consciously by knowing it is a fake license allowed or believing as genuine allowed and what extent the liability to enquire lies on the owner concerned, the cases on that principle are as follows: i) In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Laxmi Narain Dhut 2007 ACJ 721 , it was held by the Apex Court referring to Swaran Singh (supra) and New India Insurance Company Limited vs. Kamala 2001 ACJ 843 at page 41 that the defense available to the Insurer to indemnify the insured or not (any) of a third party claim under Section 149 of the Act includes the license claim as genuine is fake. In that case on facts found the license possessed was fake and it was even renewed by the Regional Transport Officer concerned ignorant if the fact or otherwise held that mere renewal of a fake license cannot cure the inherent defect as renewal cannot transform a fake license as genuine as held in Kamala(supra) was the conclusion arrived. ii) The other decision on that is Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Prithvi Raj 2008(1) Scale 727 which is also a fake license and proved so and held that a renewal cannot take away the effect of fake license to make the Insurer liable and the Insurer cannot thereby be liable to that conclusion, they followed Kamala (Supra) besides United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru JT-2003(2) SC 595 : 2003 ACJ 611 (supra). iii) The other decisions regarding fake license is National Insurance Company Limited vs. Dupati Singaiah 2010 ACJ 165 referring to Lehru, Swaran Singh, Gain Chand, Prithvi Raj, Prahlad dev (supra), not to mention Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Meena Variyar 2012 ACJ 1284 earlier expression in Scandia Insurance Company Limited Vs. Kokila Ben Chandravadan 1987 ACJ 411 (SC) and United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Rakesh Kumar Arora 2008 ACJ 2885 held that in Swaran Singh (surpa) at para-102 it was held that an insurer is entitled to raise a defense in a claim filed under Section 163A and 166 of the Act, in terms of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, as to breach of the policy conditions including disqualification of the driver or invalid license of the driver etc., and to avoid such a liability the defense has to be proved by the insurer with a plea raised to establish such breach. However, it was not laid down in Swaran Singh (supra) any criteria as to how said burden would be discharged. Thus same would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. The question as to whether owner has taken a reasonable care to find out as to whether driving license produced by driver is fake or otherwise does not fulfill the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case. If available at the time of the accident was driven by a person having learner's license, Insurance Company would be liable to satisfy the claim. Thus, unless the Insurer proves willful breach of specific conditions of policy they cannot escape from liability. In Swaran Singh (supra), at para-85 and 94 as well as 102(3) observed that it may be true that a fake or forged license is as good as no license, however, the question is whether Insurer must prove that owner was guilty of willful breach of the conditions of the policy in the contract of Insurance as considered with some details in Lehru (Supra). To agree said conclusion of Swaran singh and Lehru (supra), it was observed in Dhupati Singaiah (supra) at para-820 that in most of cases drivers and owners remaining ex-parte by taking it for granting that in the event of negligence being proved, the Insurance Company would discharge its statutory liability. To agree said conclusion of Swaran singh and Lehru (supra), it was observed in Dhupati Singaiah (supra) at para-820 that in most of cases drivers and owners remaining ex-parte by taking it for granting that in the event of negligence being proved, the Insurance Company would discharge its statutory liability. It is the only Insurer that has to lead evidence both on the question of negligence and on the question of liability, therefore, main defense available to the Insurer is under Section 149(2) of the Act when if Insurer leads evidence to show license found in the vehicle involved in the accident is fake or the driver had no license or valid license, it can be taken sufficient proof of breach of conditions as per Section149(2)(a) of Act therefrom Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act enables the Insurer to escape from liability if shown that there has been a breach of specified condition of policy and on facts therefrom held Insurer to be exonerated from liability. iv) In Ashok Gangadhar Maratha V. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. 2000 ACJ 319 and Roshanben (supra) also the above principles of law are reiterated in exonerating the insurer. v) In fact, the three judges bench judgment of the Apex Court in Swaran Singh (supra) well laid down the law in this regard referring to Lehru (supra) and Kamala (supra) that followed the earlier three-Judges bench decision Sohan Lal Passi V. P. Sesha Reddy 1996 ACJ 1046 (SC) wherein the reference was answered upholding the view taken Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Kokila Ben Chandravadan1987 ACJ 411 (SC) and the principle laid down therefrom in Swaran Singh (supra) was approved and reiterated even in the subsequent decisions including the above but for distinguishing for the facts on hand in each of the cases as held by the Apex Court in NIC Vs. Geetabhat 2008-ACJ-1498 that the principle is the same but for any deviation from factual matrix of each case if at all to say non-liability. vi) The Apex court in Lehru (supra), Swaran Singh (supra), Nanjappan (supra), Geetabhat (supra) and several other expressions in the cases relating to no license at all or imperfect and no valid license held that even it is one of breach of terms of policy and violation of rules, since the policy otherwise covers risk, though denied liability from no valid license, the insurer is to pay and recover. The insurance company cannot escape liability unless the violation proved willful with conscious knowledge and fundamental, every violation of policy conditions cannot be considered to escape the insurer from liability to indemnify the owner (insured) to the 3rd party claimants. vii) Even in Geetabhat (supra) it was held reiterating the principle laid down in the above decisions after referring the above among other several decisions that when insurer seeks to avoid liability on ground of fake or no licence of driver of the vehicle of the insurer, but for saying no licence issued by RTO in name of the driver, even taken alleged licence as fake, insurer has to pay to the third party claimants and recover from insured. viii) In fact, in Swaran Singh's case (supra), the Apex Court observed that it is the obligation on the part of owner to take equitable care to see that the driver had an appropriate license to drive the vehicle. The question as regards the liability of owner vis-a-vis the driver being not possessed of a valid license concerned, at para-89, it was observed that Section 3 of the Act casts an obligation on a driver to hold an effective driving license for the type of vehicle which he intends to drive. Section 10 of the Act enables the Central Government to prescribe forms of driving licenses for various categories of vehicles mentioned in sub-section (2) of this Section. The various types of vehicles described for which a driver may obtain a license 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. ix) Furthermore, in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Brij Mohan & Others AIR 2007 SC 1971 while holding that insurance company has no liability, however, invoked Article 142 and 136 of the Constitution in directing the insurer to pay first and recover from the vehicle owner, like in several other cases within the power of the Apex Court. x) The other decision of Apex Court in Roshanben (supra) did not lay any different proposition, it was in fact held that in the absolute proof of the defect of licence contributed to the cause of accident, for the defect alone the insurer cannot be absolved from liability. x) The other decision of Apex Court in Roshanben (supra) did not lay any different proposition, it was in fact held that in the absolute proof of the defect of licence contributed to the cause of accident, for the defect alone the insurer cannot be absolved from liability. It was a case of driving licence was meant for driving non-transport auto and held not meant to drive the transport auto. xi) In National Insurance Company Limited vs. Baljit Kaur (2004)2 SCC-1 it was held (even the case of unauthorized passenger of goods vehicle) as a general observation that interest of justice would be sub-served in giving such a direction to pay and recover having regard to the scope and purport of Sections 149 read with 168 of the MV Act, 1988. xii) In another judgment of two judges bench in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Parvathneni & Another Appeal (Civil) C.C. 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. xiii) In fact, by referring to the above expression in Swaran Singh's case (supra), this Court (High Court of Andhra Pradesh) in an appeal by insurance company, observed in New India Assurance Company Limited, Tirupati, Vs. G. Sampoorna & Others 2010 (5) ALT 105 from paras-6 onwards that insurer raised the contention of driver was not having valid license at the time of accident and examined employee of Regional Transport Office, besides employee of the insurance company and the owner of the vehicle did not speak anything. No evidence produced by claimants to show that there was a license or it was even if lapsed renewed later. However, the Tribunal held that even in the absence of driving license, 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. However, the Tribunal held that even in the absence of driving license, 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. xiv) Therefrom further held that the conclusion is not acceptable from reading of Section 149(2)(a) r/w Section 3 of the Act and by referring to Vidhyadhar Mahariwala 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 Swaran Singh (supra) apart from the earlier expressions referred therein, observed that the proposition laid down in Swaran Singh (supra) is referred to a larger bench and it is still pending. xv) In Swaran Singh (supra) it was held that the Tribunals and Courts in exercise of their jurisdiction to issue any direction for pay and recovery considering, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. In the event of 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 realise the award amount from owner or driver, as the case may be, in execution of the same award in view of Sections 165 and 168 of the Act. xvi) It is from this, the Court in Sampoorna (supra) from para-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". xvii) In paragraph 81 of Swaran Singh (supra), it was observed that right to avoid liability in terms of Section 149(2) is restricted as has been discussed herein before. xvii) In paragraph 81 of Swaran Singh (supra), it was observed that right to avoid liability in terms of Section 149(2) is restricted as has been discussed herein before. 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 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. xviii) The Supreme Court in subsequent judgments have not treated the previous judgments including Swaran Singh (supra) as laying down unexceptionable principle that in every claim brought before the Tribunal, the insurance company should be directed to pay compensation amount first even though its defence was found accepted, as evident from some of the later expressions like in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bommithi Subbhayamma & Others 2005 (4) ACJ 721, (a case of passenger in a goods vehicle). xix) By referring to the above, from' paragraph 20, the High Court in Sampoorna (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 (supra) as containing mandatory directions to 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 (supra) as leaving discretion to the Tribunals and the Courts to give appropriate directions depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. xx) By applying the ratio in Swaran Singh (supra) at para-21 of the judgment, the High Court held that some amount that was already deposited by the insurance company, which holds good to withdraw, and for the rest, insurance company is not liable. xx) By applying the ratio in Swaran Singh (supra) at para-21 of the judgment, the High Court held that some amount that was already deposited by the insurance company, which holds good to withdraw, and for the rest, insurance company is not liable. xxi) In fact besides Lehru (supra), Swaran Singh's (supra) and Nanjappan (supra) in holding that from lack of license or fake license or imperfect or defective license, the insurer can be ordered firstly to satisfy the claimants by indemnifying the owner and then recover from owner and driver; xxii) Even in the subsequent expression of the Apex Court in Kusumlatha and others V. Satbir and Others AIR 2011 SC 1234 : 2011 (2) SCJ 639 it was held that the Tribunal has got inherent power to issue such directions to insurer to pay and recover. xxiii) Even in the recent expression of the High Court in Jaya Prakash Agarwal V. Mohd. Kalimulla (2013)11 SCC- 35 having considered the law at length taken similar view, while saying at para-39 that each case has to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. xxiv) Even in the latest expression of the Apex Court in S. Iyyappan Vs. United India Insurance Company (2013) 7 SCC 62 a two judge 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 liability, from the driver is not duly licenced in driving the crime vehicle when met with accident, third party has a statutory right under Section 149 read with 168 of the Act to recover compensation from insurer and it was for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of amount paid to third party in case there was any fundamental breach of condition of Insurance policy. xxv) From the above proposition, there is nothing to say that the violation is a substantial breach, so also the overloading, totally to exonerate the insurer of the auto to confine to the three seater auto for three highest claims out of the 40% contributory negligence liability of owner cum driver of the auto to deposit for payment to respective claims and to recover from the owner by filing execution petition before the Tribunal in respective claim cases as per above expressions in Lehru, Swaransingh, Nanjappan, Kusumlatha, Iyyappem (supra) and as laid down in B.V. Nagaraju and Anjanasyam (supra). 11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 3 and 4 that as they were impleaded in the claim petition in the year, 2009 they are liable to pay interest only from that year but not from the year 2007 when the claim petition was instituted originally. The said contention is not tenable as the interest to be awarded is at the discretion of the Tribunal and the appellate Court under Section 17 of the M.V. Act to award reasonably and the interest rate awarded by the Tribunal from date of claim petitions is reasonable, it requires no interference, even the liability on contributory negligence apportioned in the appeal on owner cum driver and insurer of the auto. 12. Now coming to the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No. 787 of 2007 in MA CMA No. 613 of 2011, the injured was aged 20 years as on the date of accident and he was unmarried and for the injuries sustained as per Ex.A.3, medical certificate issued by the Remedy hospital and Ex.A. 6 is the photos and negatives and from the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3, Dr. Rohit Kumar and Dr. Sateesh Kumar respectively, there is a fracture to left zygoma, fracture of left nasal bone, fracture to sphenoid bone, fracture lateral volve orbit, fracture proximal phalynix right thumb and dislodged teeth and there was a treatment given by plastic surgeon, who is P.W.2, so also there is a facial disfiguration and the expenditure proved from the bills covered by Ex.A.4 with Ex.A.5 prescriptions and for the injuries awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- besides extra nourishment and transport charges awarded Rs. 15,000/-. 1,00,000/- besides extra nourishment and transport charges awarded Rs. 15,000/-. Even the amount awarded for the injuries put together can be taken a little excessive, as there are loss of earnings, attendant charges, transport charges and extra nourishment, thereby an amount of Rs. 2,15,000/- awarded not excessive, but just. So also rate of interest awarded at 7.5% per annum. 13. Coming to the quantum of compensation in O.P. No. 793 of 2007 in MACMA No. 615 of 2011, it is a case of death of 2 years age girl and the compensation awarded was Rs. 1,50,000/- and the tribunal adopted multiplier was 15 by deducting 1/3rd. Even the claimants are parents thereby to some extent excessive, to say to deduct 1/2. However, even taken for a child in the womb is also entitled to Rs. 50,000/- which is under no fault liability sum for the two years age on the average at Rs. 20,000/- per annum, it comes to Rs. 90,000/-and the loss of estate that can be awarded minimum Rs. 5,000/- and funeral expenses Rs. 5,000/- for the parents lost a child at the second year for love and affection lost can be taken atleast at Rs. 20,000/- which comes to Rs. 1,20,000/-. Hence, reducing the quantum of compensation from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 1,20,000/- by holding the rate of interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 14. Coming to the quantum of compensation in O.P. No. 794 of 2007 in MACMA No. 616 of 2011, the compensation awarded was Rs. 53,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum for the injuries sustained which are multiple injuries on shoulders, knees and other parts of the body. As can be seen from the medical certificate, they are blunt injuries and two of which are described by the doctor as grievous and claimed Rs. 25,000/- towards medical expenses, thereby the same is no way excessive and thus requires no interference. 15. Coming to the quantum of compensation in O.P. No. 786 of 2007 in MACMA No. 625 of 2011, the compensation awarded was Rs. 87,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum concerned, besides four simple injuries two grievous injuries including the fracture of left thigh bone and amputation of left testees and the compensation in fact can be said low, but for no cross appeal and thereby requires no interference. 16. 87,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum concerned, besides four simple injuries two grievous injuries including the fracture of left thigh bone and amputation of left testees and the compensation in fact can be said low, but for no cross appeal and thereby requires no interference. 16. Coming to the quantum of compensation in O.P. No. 788 of 2007 in MACMA No. 642 of 2011, the compensation awarded Rs. 17,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum is concerned, as per Ex.A.3, wound certificate, besides the extraordinary injury to the left thigh and injury to head, there was development of headache and other complications and giddiness and was treated as inpatient initially at Gandhi hospital and later at Remedy hospital, thereby the said amount of Rs. 17,000/- is no way excessive, but for low and for no cross appeal to enhance. 17. Coming to the quantum of compensation in O.P. No. 789 of 2007 in MACMA No. 699 of 2011 of Rs. 4,00,000/- awarded with interest at 7.5% per annum is concerned, the injured by name, Baby Shaguftha at the time of accident was two years age girl and the injuries sustained as per Ex.A.3, medical certificate with reference to the evidence of Dr. Dinesh Kumar Chirla, are bilateral parietal bone fractures and multiple areas of brain contusions and left high parietal infaret with diffuse cerebral edea that was confirmed from CT scan of the brain and the patient had also seizures were confirmed by ECG and she was in intensive care with ventilation for breathing support for about 25 days till discharge on 1st June, 2007 and again readmitted on 04.06.2007 and continued as inpatient till 17.06.2007, again readmitted on 26.06.2007 and continued till 29.06.2007 and again readmitted on 20.07.2007 continued till 26.07.2007 from complications associated with fever and she is neurological effect with severe disability assessed 80% permanent disability and the medical expenditure as per Ex.A.4, medical bills, 21 in number issued by the hospital for Rs. 3,11,999.73ps, thereby for the injuries compensation awarded by the tribunal is including medical expenses only a sum of Rs. 88,000/-, which no way excessive but for just and thereby nothing to interfere. 18. Coming to three highest claims, out of above six claims are concerned i.e., Rs. 4,00,000/- in MACMA No. 699 of 2011, Rs. 2,15,000/- in MACMA No. 613 of 2011 and the Rs. 88,000/-, which no way excessive but for just and thereby nothing to interfere. 18. Coming to three highest claims, out of above six claims are concerned i.e., Rs. 4,00,000/- in MACMA No. 699 of 2011, Rs. 2,15,000/- in MACMA No. 613 of 2011 and the Rs. 1,20,000/- in MACMA No. 615 of 2011 that are liable to indemnify by the insurer of the auto for the 40% contributory negligence liability. Thus in these three claims concerned, out of the six injured passengers, 40% of the proportionate liability of the contributory negligence therein comes to Rs. 2,94,000/- (Rs.1,60,000/- + Rs. 86,000/- + Rs. 48,000/-), the insurer i.e. Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company i.e. R-4 in all the appeals, but for R-5 in MACMA No. 615 of 2011 has to pay for the proportionate liability to pay and recover from owner cum driver of the auto. After deposit of amount covered by the three claims as per the law in NIC Vs. Anjana Shyam & others supra to apportion by the Tribunal. In other three claims, the auto driver cum owner is alone personally liable to pay the 40% liability that comes to Rs. 62,800/-; out of Rs. 87,000/- in MACMA No. 625 of 2011 40% comes to Rs. 34,800/-, out of Rs. 53,000/- in MACMA No. 616 of 2011 40% comes to Rs. 21,200/- and Rs. 17,000/- in MACMA No. 642 of 2011 40% comes to Rs. 6,800/-. Thus, the owner cum driver of the auto as well as the insurer shall pay or deposit above respective amounts within one month, failing which, on common execution application moved by any of the six respective claimants for and on behalf of others; the Tribunal shall recover the respective whole amount supra from the insurer and owner cum driver of the auto respectively to the credit of any of the six claims and on such realization or deposit, the Tribunal has to apportion out of the total sum i.e. Rs. 2,94,000/- due to the Insurer of the auto among all these claimants in the respective six claims, subject to pay and recovery. 2,94,000/- due to the Insurer of the auto among all these claimants in the respective six claims, subject to pay and recovery. It is made clear for the Insurer of the auto to safeguard recovery from owner of the auto while depositing said amounts to the credit of respective claims, the insurer of the auto can file execution applications for attachment of the crime vehicle including direction to the R.T.A. concerned not to register the crime vehicle if not already transferred and registered or attachment of any other property of the driver cum owner of the auto for assurance of recovery. On deposit of the said amount by the Tribunal, it shall not disburse the amount without apportionment as indicated supra. 19. Out of the total compensation in all six claims comes to Rs. 8,92,000/-; 40% therein comes to Rs. 3,56,800/-. (i) In MACMA 699/11 (O.P.789) the amount to the apportioned to the claimants out of Rs. 2,94,000/- to be realized from Auto insurer (subject to pay and recovery) comes to Rs. 1,31,838/- and remaining Rs. 28,162/- (out of Rs. 62,800/-) to be realized from auto owner to pay to the claimants; (ii) In MACMA 615( O.P.793) the amount to the apportioned to the claimants out of Rs. 2,94,000/- to be realized from auto insurer (subject to pay and recovery) comes to Rs. 39,552/- and remaining Rs. 8,448/- (out of Rs. 62,800/-) to be realized from auto owner to pay to the claimants; (iii) In MACMA 616(O.P.794) the amount to the apportioned to the claimants out of Rs. 2,94,000/- to be realized from auto insurer (subject to pay and recovery) comes to Rs. 17,469/- and remaining Rs. 3731/- (out of Rs. 62,600) to be realized from auto owner to pay to the claimants; (iv) In MACMA 625(O.P.786) the amount to the apportioned to the claimants out of Rs. 2,94,000/- to be realized from auto insurer (subject to pay and recovery) comes to Rs. 28,675/- and remaining Rs. 6125/- (out of Rs. 62,800) to be realized from auto owner to pay to the claimants; (v) In MACMA 642(O.P.788) the amount to the apportioned to the claimants out of Rs. 2,94,000/- to be realized from auto insurer (subject to pay and recovery) comes to Rs. 5603/- and remaining Rs. 1197/- (out of Rs. 28,675/- and remaining Rs. 6125/- (out of Rs. 62,800) to be realized from auto owner to pay to the claimants; (v) In MACMA 642(O.P.788) the amount to the apportioned to the claimants out of Rs. 2,94,000/- to be realized from auto insurer (subject to pay and recovery) comes to Rs. 5603/- and remaining Rs. 1197/- (out of Rs. 62,800) to be realized from auto owner to pay to the claimants (vi) In MACMA 613(O.P.787) the amount to the apportioned to the claimants out of Rs. 2,94,000/- to be realized from auto insurer (subject to pay and recovery) comes to Rs. 70,863/- and remaining Rs. 15,137/- (out of Rs. 62,800/-) to be realized from auto owner to pay to the claimants. 20. Now coming to the liability of -the Insurer (appellant) of the Van to indemnify the owner regarding the 60% liability out of all the six claims comes to Rs. 5,35,200/- (out of Rs. 8,92,000/-), the claimants in O.P. No. 789 (MACMA.699) entitled to Rs. 2,40,000/-; the claimants in O.P. No. 793 (MACMA 615) entitled to Rs. 72,000/-; the claimants in O.P. No. 794 (MACMA 616) entitled to Rs. 31,800/-; the claimants in O.P. No. 786 (MACMA 625) entitled to Rs. 52,200/-; the claimants in O.P. No. 788 (MACMA 642) entitled to Rs. 10,200/-; the claimants in O.P. No. 787 (MACMA 613) entitled to Rs. 1,29,000/-. 21. Thus as noted above, the owner of the van and the insurer (appellant) in all the appeals i.e. the National Insurance Company Ltd., for the 60% liability liable to pay/deposit said amount within one month from today to the credit of the respective claim petitions, failing which, the claimants can file execute petition land recover. The Tribunal can permit out of said amounts for any just grounds for withdrawal and to invest balance in Fixed Deposits respectively. 22. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in these appeals, shall stand closed.