JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred against the decree and award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge(FTC), Gooty in O.P.No.150 of 2005. 2. The insurer, who was the second respondent in the above matter, is the appellant. The first respondent was the claimant and whereas the second respondent was the owner of the offending tractor-trailer involved in the alleged accident. 3. This appeal against second respondent was dismissed for default on 13.07.2016. 4. The first respondent as claimant sought compensation of Rs.3.00 lakhs on account of injuries suffered in an accident on 08.09.2004 at about 5.30 a.m., while travelling in the tractor trailer belonging to second respondent. The claimant attributed that this accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the tractor-trailer when it dashed against a lorry coming from opposite direction. The claimant also alleged that he had spent a lot of money for his treatment in different hospitals and in as much as the offending tractor trailer was insured with the appellant, the appellant as well as the second respondent should satisfy his claim. Thus, the first respondent has set out his claim. 5. The appellant alone contested this claim before the Tribunal filing a written statement, denying it’s liability on the ground that the first respondent was travelling in the tractor-trailer as a hamali, who was engaged along with others for loading and unloading of the goods. It also questioned the claim on the ground that no premium was paid for the labourers so engaged by the second respondent, while disputing the claim in general including the quantum. 6. The Tribunal basing on the pleadings, settled the following issues for trial: “1.Whether the accident was occurred on 08-09-2004 due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor/trailer bearing No.AP-02-U-668/669 by its driver and caused injuries to the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondent? 3. To what relief?” 7. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondent? 3. To what relief?” 7. Basing on the evidence of the first respondent as R.W.1, another witness who speaks to have had witnessed the accident being P.W.2, evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.4 who were the doctors that treated the first respondent and considering Ex.A1 to Ex.A8, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2 relied on for the first respondent, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.2,45,000/-with costs and with future interest at 7.5% per annum thereon from the date of the petition till realization against the second respondent and the appellant. In that process, the Tribunal also considered the testimony of R.W.1 -one of the officers of the appellant as well as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3. 8. Ms.D.Anusha, learned counsel representing Smt.A.Anasuya, learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the Tribunal went wrong in fixing the liability on the appellant particularly when Ex.B1 policy of insurance did not cover liability the case of labourers travelling in a tractor-trailer and therefore, in the absence of contract indemnifying the liability of the second respondent, there cannot be any justification in the order of the Tribunal. The fact situation relating to nature of accident is also adverted to, in this process. 9. On behalf of the first respondent, Smt.N.Sasikala, learned counsel supported the order under appeal basing on the facts and the material, while requesting not to interfere with the order under appeal. 10. In as much as the question for determination in this appeal is limited and to consider the liability of the appellant, the point that emerges is, in the given facts and circumstances, particularly, in terms of Ex.B1 policy of insurance between the appellant and the second respondent, whether the appellant can be made liable to satisfy the claim of the first respondent? 11. The questions relating to nature of accident attributing rash and negligent driving to the driver of the offending tractor-trailer and nature of injuries suffered by the first respondent are discussed in the order of the Tribunal, while considering issues 1 and 2 in detail. On behalf of the appellant, these findings recorded by the Tribunal have not been specifically challenged or questioned. On behalf of the appellant, these findings recorded by the Tribunal have not been specifically challenged or questioned. Even otherwise, having regard to nature of evidence adduced by the claimant at the trial, particularly, the testimony of P.W.3 and P.W.4 in relation to amputation suffered by the claimant to his left lower limb, the findings so recorded by the Tribunal are apparently just and proper. They do not call for interference, as such. 12. However, as rightly pointed out for the appellant, Ex.B1 policy did not cover the liability of the workers or employees engaged for the purpose of loading or unloading in the tractor. Though it refers to legal liability of employee/driver, it cannot be extended to cover the instances of the present nature, viz., hamalies engaged in the tractor. Thus, there cannot be direct liability of the insurer and to satisfy the claim of the first respondent, indemnifying the second respondent. 13. At the same time, the object and purpose of Motor Vehicles Act as such particularly with reference to application of Section 166 and Section 168 of M.V.Act, cannot be over looked, when they are the benevolent provisions, stand to assist the unfortunate victims in motor vehicle accidents. Added to it, the first respondent stands in the position of a third party to the contract of insurance between the appellant and the second respondent. The violation of terms of Ex.B1 policy in given facts and circumstances of the case also cannot be taken as so fundamental that it would have affected controlling or managing the vehicle in question at the time of the alleged accident. The observations of Honourable Supreme Court in NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. SWARAN SINGH AND OTHERS, which were later on followed in SHAMANNA AND ANOTHER v. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. AND OTHERS, have to be made applicable in the present circumstances. Further, in MANUARA KHATUN & OTHERS v. RAJESH KR.SINGH & OTHERS, while holding similarly, as per SWARAN SINGH and SHAMANNA, the insurer was directed to satisfy the claim of the claimants in the first instance and later recover from the insured. 14. Therefore, in as much as the law in this respect, is apparently settled, favouring the victims in motor vehicle accident, the same has to be applied, in given facts and circumstances of this case. 15. Therefore, the liability of the second respondent alone has to be fixed. 14. Therefore, in as much as the law in this respect, is apparently settled, favouring the victims in motor vehicle accident, the same has to be applied, in given facts and circumstances of this case. 15. Therefore, the liability of the second respondent alone has to be fixed. In the circumstances, in as much as the second respondent did not participate in the proceedings before the Tribunal, who remained ex parte against whom the decree and award passed by the Tribunal remain intact without getting in any manner disturbed or modified, failure of the insurer to pursue the matter against him in this appeal, cannot hold relevance. In fact, there was no necessity for the appellant to take out notice to the second respondent, since he remained ex parte in the Tribunal. Viewed from this perspective, having regard to the findings recorded above, exonerating the appellant from its liability to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, following ‘pay and recover’ principle it has to satisfy the award and decree in the first instance. The insurer can be given liberty to recover the amount so awarded by the Tribunal from the second respondent in the same proceedings before the Tribunal, later. 16. In the result, this appeal is allowed, setting aside the decree and award in making the appellant insurer jointly and severally liable along with the second respondent to satisfy the claim of the first respondent. Thus, the decree and award under appeal are set aside in part. In all other respects, the decree and award of the Tribunal stand confirmed and particularly with reference to liability of the second respondent to satisfy the claim so awarded. 17. The appellant is directed to satisfy the award and decree in the first instance and thereafter, it is permitted to recover the same, in the same proceedings before the Tribunal from the second respondent. No costs. Interim orders, stand vacated. All pending petitions, stand closed.