ORDER 1. This Misc. Appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the Award dated 30.8.2012 passed by 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No 73/2011. 2. The necessary facts for disposal of the present appeal in short are that respondent No.4 is the owner of the offending Motor Cycle, whereas the respondent No. 5 is the driver of the offending Motor Cycle bearing registration No. MP 33 MD/7401. It is alleged that on 5.5.2011 at about 4 p.m., the deceased Banti along with pillion rider Nabal Singh was going on his motor cycle. The respondent No. 5 by driving the offending Motor Cycle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the motor cycle of the deceased as a result of which, the deceased expired whereas the pillion rider Nabal Singh sustained injuries. 3. The respondents No. 1 to 3/Legal Heirs of deceased Banti, filed a claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. 4. The respondent No. 5, relied upon the driving license, Ex D5 which was issued by RTO, Gwalior, but it also came on record that RTO Jhansi had also issued a Driving License for LMV and HTV. The driving license issued by RTO Jhansi was prior in time. 5. The Claims Tribunal disbelieved the driving License, Ex. D/5 and held that the respondent No. 5 was holding valid driving license Ex. D/1 which was issued by RTO Jhansi. Accordingly, an award of Rs. 5,82,500/- was passed after holding that the appellant is also jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 6. Challenging the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant, that undisputedly the driving license issued by RTO Jhansi was for driving LMV and HTV whereas the respondent No. 5 was driving motor cycle at the time of accident, thus, he was not holding valid driving license to drive Motor Cycle. 7. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent No. 1 to 3 that even if the respondent No. 5 was not holding valid driving license to drive Motor Cycle, still the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation with liberty to recover the same from the respondents No. 4 and 5. 8. None for the respondents No. 4 and 5 though served and represented. 9. 8. None for the respondents No. 4 and 5 though served and represented. 9. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. 10. Undisputedly, the Claims Tribunal has relied upon the driving License, Ex. D/1 issued by the RTO, Jhansi, which was valid for driving LMV and HTV. 11. Section 2(16), 2(17), 2(21) and 2(27) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 defines Heavy Goods Vehicle, Heavy Passenger Motor Vehicle, Light Motor Vehicle and Motor Cycle which reads as under : (16) “heavy goods vehicle” means any goods carriage the gross-vehicle weight of which, or a tractor or a road-roller the unladen weight of either of which, exceeds 12,000 Kilograms (17) “heavy passenger motor vehicle” means any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or educational institution bus or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of any of which, or a motor car the unladen weight of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms (21) “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed [7500]8 kilograms (27) “motor cycle” means a two-wheeled motor vehicle, inclusive of any detachable side-car having an extra wheel, attached to the motor vehicle 12. Undisputedly, the respondent No. 5 was not having valid driving license to drive motor cycle. Section 10 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under : 10. Form and contents of licences to drive.—(1) Every learner's licence and driving licence, except a driving licence issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner's licence or, as the case may be, driving licence shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely— (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) adapted vehicle; (d) light motor vehicle; [(e) transport vehicle; (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. 13. Therefore, Motor Cycle with or without gear is a separate class whereas LMV and Transport Vehicles are two separate classes. Thus, it is clear that the respondent No. 5 was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident and thus, had violated the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. 14. 13. Therefore, Motor Cycle with or without gear is a separate class whereas LMV and Transport Vehicles are two separate classes. Thus, it is clear that the respondent No. 5 was not holding valid driving license at the time of accident and thus, had violated the terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. 14. Thus, the Claims Tribunal committed an error by holding that the appellant is jointly and severally liable to pay compensation along with respondents No. 4 and 5 and accordingly the appellant is exonerated from its liability. 15. However, the next question for consideration is that whether the appellant can be saddled with liability to honor the award with right to recover the same from the respondents No. 4 and 5 or not? 16. The Supreme Court in the case of Shivaraj v. Rajendra reported in (2018) 10 SCC 432 has held as under : 10. The High Court, however, found in favour of Respondent 2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods. The evidence on record unambiguously pointed out that neither was any trailer insured nor was any trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it would follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one person, namely, the driver. As a result, the Insurance Company (Respondent 2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor. That conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case. 11. At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case the High Court ought to have directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant claimant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rani v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and including Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by respondent 2. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rani v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and including Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by respondent 2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to respondent 2 insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, respondent 1. In the present case also, the injured persons were sitting in the trolley, attached with Tractor No. MP 06 J.A. 4039. The claims Tribunal has come to a conclusion that since, the Tractor was insured for agricultural purposes and no extra premium was paid for the passengers, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation due to breach of Insurance Policy, however, applied the principle of pay and recover. The Supreme Court in the case of Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh reported in 2017 ACJ 1031 has held as under : 16. This question also fell for consideration recently in Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul & Anr., (supra), wherein this Court took note of entire previous case law on the subject mentioned above and examined the question in the context of section 147 of the Act. While allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company by reversing the judgment of the High Court, it was held on facts that since the victim was travelling in offending vehicle as "gratuitous passenger" and hence, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to suffer the liability arising out of accident on the strength of the insurance policy.However, this Court keeping in view the benevolent object of the Act and other relevant factors arising in the case, issued the directions against the Insurance Company to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by applying the principle of "pay and recover". The Supreme Court in the case of Shamanna v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 863 has held as under : 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Shamanna v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 863 has held as under : 13. Since the reference to the larger Bench in Parvathneni case has been disposed of by keeping the questions of law open to be decided in an appropriate case, presently the decision in Swaran Singh case followed in Laxmi Narain Dhut and other cases hold the field. The award passed by the Tribunal directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount awarded to the claimants and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question, is in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in Swaran Singh and Laxmi Narain Dhut cases. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle. The impugned judgment of the High Court exonerating the insurance company from its liability and directing the claimants to recover the compensation from the owner of the vehicle is set aside and the award passed by the Tribunal is restored. 17. Further, the Insurance Policy is a contract between the insured and the insurer and the insurer agrees to indemnify the insured against all the claims arising out of use of vehicle, however, such contract is subject to the conditions that the vehicle shall not be plied or driven contrary to the provisions of law as well as Insurance Policy. Thus, it is clear that the insurer/Insurance Company can get away from its liability of indemnifying the insured by proving that the vehicle was being used contrary to the Insurance Policy. However, the claimants are completely stranger to the contract between the insured and the insurer. Once, the Insurance Company had agreed to indemnify the insured than it would be a dispute between the insured and the insurer as to whether the vehicle was being used contrary to the conditions of Insurance Policy or not? But the claimants cannot be made to suffer because of inter se dispute between the insured and the insurer. Once, the Insurance Company had agreed to indemnify the insured than it would be a dispute between the insured and the insurer as to whether the vehicle was being used contrary to the conditions of Insurance Policy or not? But the claimants cannot be made to suffer because of inter se dispute between the insured and the insurer. Once, the vehicle is insured, then the Insurance Company must satisfy the award and if it is found by the Claims Tribunal that the vehicle was being used contrary to the conditions of Insurance Policy, then the right to recover the amount has been given to the Insurance Company without filing a separate suit against the insured. 18. Since, the quantum of compensation amount has not been challenged by the appellant, therefore, maintaining the quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal, the appellant is exonerated of its liability to severally and jointly pay the compensation, but since the vehicle was insured by the appellant, therefore, it is directed that the compensation amount shall be paid by the appellant, and it shall have the right to recover the same from the respondents No. 4 and 5. 19. With aforesaid modification, the Award dated 30.8.2012 passed by 7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No 73/2011 is hereby affirmed. 20. The appeal succeeds and is allowed to the extent mentioned above. R.V. Sharma for appellant; R.P. Gupta for respondents No.1 to 3/ claimants.