JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. FAO No. 27 of 2017, stands directed, by the aggrieved Insurer, whereas, FAO No. 620 of 2016, stands directed, by the aggrieved registered owner, of, the offending vehicle, hence against the award, pronounced by the learned MACT concerned, upon, claim petition No. 97-S/2 of 2014.Through FAO No. 27 of 2017, the aggrieved Insurer has strived, to, seek reversal, from this Court, vis-à-vis, the adoption, by the learned MACT concerned, of, the principle of “pay and recover”, (i) comprised, in, after the learned Tribunal, determining compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs. 27,48,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% commencing, from, the date of filing of petition, till its realization, vis-à-vis, the claimants, its though, initially fastening the apposite indemnificatory liability, on respondent No. 1, the registered owner, of, the offending vehicle, (ii) and yet thereafter, it making a direction, upon, the Insurer, to, make, the, initial deposit thereof, and with, a, right reserved, vis-à-vis, it, to, thereafter, seek realization therefrom, in accordance with law, from, the registered owner. Through FAO No. 620 of 2016, the aggrieved registered owner, strives to reduce, the, compensation amount, as becomes adjudged, vis-à-vis, the claimants, hence in the impugned award. 2. The learned counsel appearing, for, the aggrieved Insurer, has, in his attempt, to overcome the afore adoption, as made, in, the impugned award, hence by the learned Tribunal concerned, rather made allusions, to, the mandate, borne in Section 149, of, the Motor Vehicles Act, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter: “149. 2. The learned counsel appearing, for, the aggrieved Insurer, has, in his attempt, to overcome the afore adoption, as made, in, the impugned award, hence by the learned Tribunal concerned, rather made allusions, to, the mandate, borne in Section 149, of, the Motor Vehicles Act, provisions whereof are extracted hereinafter: “149. Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks: (i) If, after a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 147 in favour of the person by whom a policy has been effected, judgment or award in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 147 (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy ) [or under the provisions of section 163] is obtained against any person insured by the policy, then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to the provisions of this section, pay to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree any sum not exceeding the sum assured payable thereunder, as if he were the judgment debtor, in respect of the liability, together with any amount payable in respect of costs and any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any enactment relating to interest on judgments. (2) No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal of the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely: (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely: (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle: (a) for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward. (b) for organized racing an speed testing. (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle. (d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle. (ii) a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person whohas been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving license during the period of disqualification. (ii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion. (b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the nondisclosure of a material fact or by a presentation of fact which was false in some material particular. (ii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditions of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion. (b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the nondisclosure of a material fact or by a presentation of fact which was false in some material particular. (3) Where any such judgment as is referred to in sub-section (1) is obtained from a court in a reciprocating country and in the case of a foreign judgment is, by virtue of the provisions of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 conclusive as to any matter adjudicated upon by it, the insurer (being an insurer registered under the Insurance Act 1938 and where or not he is registered under the corresponding law of the reciprocating country) shall be liable to the person entitled to the benefit of the decree in the manner and to the extent specified in sub-section (1), as if the judgment were given by a court in India. PROVIDED that no sum shall be payable by the insurer in respect of any such judgment unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment is given, the insurer had notice through the Court concerned of the bringing of the proceedings and the insurer to whom notice is so given is entitled under the corresponding law of the reciprocating country, to be made a party to the proceedings and to defend the action on grounds similar to those specified in sub-section (2). (4) Where a certificate of insurance has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 147 to the person by whom a policy has been effected, so much of the policy as purports to restrict the insurance of the persons insured thereby by reference to any conditions other than those in clause (b) of sub-section (2) shall, as respects such liabilities as are required to be covered by a policy under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 147, be of no effect; PROVIDED that any sum paid by the insurer in or towards the discharge of any liability of any person which is covered by the policy by virtue only of this sub-section shall be recoverable by the insurer from that person. (5) If the amount which an insurer becomes liable under this section to pay in respect of a liability incurred by a person insured by a policy exceeds the amount for which the insurer would apart from the provisions of this section be liable under the policy in respect of that liability, the insurer shall be entitled to recover the excess from that person. (6) In this section the expressions “material fact” and “material particular” mean respectively a fact or particular of such a nature as to influence the judgment of a prudent insurer in determining whether he will take the risk and, if so, at what premium and on what conditions, and the expression “liability covered by the terms of the policy” means a liability which is covered by the policy or which could be so covered but for the fact that the insurer is entitled to avoid or cancel or has avoided or cancelled the policy. (7) No insurer to whom the notice referred to in sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) has been given shall be entitled to avoid his liability to any person entitled to the benefit of any such judgment or award as is referred to in sub-section (1) or in such judgment as is referred to in sub-section (3) otherwise than in the manner provided for in sub-section (2) or in the corresponding law of the reciprocating country, as the case may be.” (i) and his emphasized allusion, is, vis-à-vis, the mandate encapsulated, in, clause (a, of, sub-section 2 thereof (ii) and, on anvil thereof, he contends, that, with the emunerated therein hence, the apt categorized breaches, rather conspicuously being all exhaustive, or, being all inclusive, (iii) and, hence also when, the, alleged, hereat fundamental breach, rather becomes comprised, in, the apposite offending vehicle, hence at the relevant time, remaining unregistered, with, the Registering Authority concerned, and, with the afore breach remaining un-encapsulated therein, (iv) thereupon, the, lack, of, encapsulation, of, the afore breach, in sub-Section 2, of, Section 149, of, the Motor Vehicles Act, renders it, to, become a fundamental breach, hence becoming committed, by the Insurer, and, concomitantly when the Insurer, is, barred to rear any statutory defensive espousal, qua therewith (v) thereupon, the determined compensation amount, on anvil, vis-à-vis, commission, of, the afore statutorily un-enumerated fundamental breach, being un-amenable, to be indemnifiable, by the Insurer, and, rather it becoming incumbent, upon, the MACT concerned, to, not, upon, emergence thereof, rather adopt the principle, of, pay and recover. The afore submission has vigor, (vi) as a perusal of sub-section 2 of Section 149, of, the Motor Vehicles Act, rather approbates the afore made contention (vii) and when the hereat committed evident breach, rather, by the Insurer, is, excluded, from, the apt therewith statutory provisions, (viii) thereupon, the exclusion (s) therein thereof, renders it, to be a fundamental breach, qua wherewith, the, adoption of principle, of, “pay and recover”, is, grossly impermissible, (ix) as any meteing, of, deference to adoption thereof, would tantamount, to other, connected therewith apposite compliable statutory provisions, hence, barring the plying, of, motor vehicle (s), rather upon, any public place or public road, dehors, it thereat becoming not assigned, any valid registration number rather by the Registering Authority, concerned, hence becoming, mis-befittingly redundant, and, also becoming otiose, with, a further ill-sequel, qua hence the afore impermissible plying (s) becoming, rather untenably construed, to, become covered, under, the apt contract, of, Insurance, executed interese the Insurer, and the Insured. Consequently, for, obviating, any, emergence, of, any misbeffiting hence interse conflict, interse, the mandate of sub-Section 2, of Section 149 of the Act, and, vis-à-vis, the afore connected therewith hence apposite statutory mandatorily compliable provisions, and, conspicuously linked, with, the hereat emerging evident breach, rather completely barring, the, plying, of, the offending vehicle, on a public place/public road, hence for want, of, a valid registration, becoming assigned therewith, hence by the Registering Authority concerned, thereupon also the afore made argument, before this Court, is, rendered meritworthy. 3. 3. Even though, the learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved claimant, has, resisted the vigor, of, the afore made submission, and, has strived to blunt, its vigor, by contending, that, subsection (1), of, Section 149 of the M.V. Act, (i) upon holding, a, statutory contemplation, rather coined, in a phraseology, or, hence commencing, with, a non-obstante clause, and, it making echoing (s), visà- vis, the dis-entitlement (s), of the Insurer, to, avoid or cancel, or avoid the apt contracted liability, ii) and rather, enjoining upon, the Insurer, to, vis-à-vis, the claimants, hence liquidates the sums, adjudged in the award, and, also with its making a further statutory contemplation, hence, statutorily meteing vis-à-vis, the Insured, the, status, of, a Judgment Debtor, hence contends, that, the adoption, of, the principle of “pay and recover”, rather stands, encapsulated therewithin, (iii) and, the mandate, of, sub-section (iv),hence overrides, the, mandate, of, sub-section (2), of, the Motor Vehicles Act. However, the afore made submission, is, un-meritworthy, as, the learned counsel, for, the claimant, has, remained unmindful, to, the apt disjunctive statutory phrase, “or, subject to the provisions of the Act, occurring in sub-section (1) of Section 149, of, the Motor Vehicles Act,” (v) and hence, when, the apt non-obstante clause, precedes, the, afore statutory excepting thereto coinage, occurring therein, and, thereupon though, the apt non-obstante clause hence makes, a statutory contemplation, vis-avis, the validities, of, applying (s), of, the principle of “pay and recover”, (vi) nonetheless rather the afore apposite preceding, statutory contemplation, vis-à-vis, the subsequent thereto therein occurring rather exception thereto, necessarily foster, an, inference qua, the, apposite non-obstante clause, hence holding only, a, limited clout and sway, and, obviously it becomes trammeled, by, the subsequent thereto provisions, as, occur, in, section (2) of Section 149, of, the Act, (vii) wheretowhich the afore proceding thereto, statutory contemplation, as, appertaining, to, the adoption, of, the principle of “pay and recover”, hence, becomes statutorily subjected to, (vii) thereupon unless, the emerging hereat evident breach, stands enumerated, in clause (a), of sub-section 2, of, the Act, thereupon alone the adoption, of, the principle of “pay and recover”, shall be legally befitting, (viii) however, when the aforesaid hereat emerging evident breach, is, un-encapsulated, in, the all inclusive hence appertaining therewith clause (a) of sub-Section (2) of Section 149 of the M.V.Act, (ix) thereupon the mandate, of, sub-Section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, hence, contemplating, the, the principle of “pay and recover”, is, un-amenable, for recourse, either by this Court or by the learned Tribunal, hence any adoption thereof, is, unbefitting, contrarily, the entire apposite indemnificatory liability, is, to be saddled, upon, the Registered owner, of, the offending vehicle. 4. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the aggrieved Insurer, has, contended that, despite no evidence, existing on record, vis-à-vis, the deceased, from, his avocation, as a Singer, hence deriving an income of Rs. 40,000/- hence, it was not enjoined, upon, the learned Tribunal, to assess his notional income, from, the afore avocation, and, to compute in a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per mensem, as the afore income, is, also a gross over assessment. 40,000/- hence, it was not enjoined, upon, the learned Tribunal, to assess his notional income, from, the afore avocation, and, to compute in a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per mensem, as the afore income, is, also a gross over assessment. Rather, he contends that the deceased was construable to be, a, highly skilled professional, and, his per diem wages, were computable, hence in contemporaneity, vis-à-vis, the happening of the ill-fated mishap, besides in tandem, vis-à-vis, in contemporaneity therewith hence prevailing rather notified per diem wages, rather appertaining to a skilled workmen. However, in making the afore submission, the, afore counsel has remained unmindful, qua the deceased, when, as evident from his Audio CDs, becoming placed on record, being a folk singer, and, hence, with his being engaged, in, a highly refined aesthetic avocation, hence perse, it, is devoid, of, any equations, being drawn, interse it, vis-à-vis, any work, of, skilled or unskilled nature, performed, by, any skilled or unskilled categories, of, workmen, (i) and qua wherewith rather the notified wages are meteable, (ii) thereupon the computation, vis-àvis, the per-mensem income of the deceased, in, the impugned award, in, a sum of Rs. 12,000/- per mensem, and, thereafter, the, meteing (s), of, the apt accretions, thereons ,on account, of, future incremental prospects and also, after meteing, the, apt deductions, thereon (s), hence, applying, the, trite apposite multiplier, is, legally apt, and, befitting. 5. Consequently, FAO No. 27 of 2017, instituted by the Insurer, is partly allowed, however, FAO No. 620 of 2016, instituted by owner of the offending vehicle, is, dismissed. The indemnificatory liability, is, saddled, upon the registered owner, of, the offending vehicle. All pending application (s), if any, are also disposed of.