JUDGMENT B. Vijaysen Reddy, J. - This appeal is preferred by the appellant - insurance company challenging the order dated 13.04.2010 in OP.No.1898 of 2007 passed by the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad. 2. The claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the death of the wife of the claimant in a motor accident. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the wife of the claimant, Late Anuradha, aged about 19 years, was working as a labourer earning monthly income of Rs.4,500/-. On 26.06.2007, at about 18.45 Hrs, while she was travelling in a Tata Mobile vehicle bearing No.AP 28X-4240 from Yenkepalli village to Nagasanpalli village, on the reaching the outskirts of Yenkepalli village, the driver of the vehicle drove with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to a tree resulting in the death of the wife of the claimant. A case in Cr.No.95 of 2007 was registered under Sections 304-A and 337 IPC on the file of the Chengomul Police Station. The claimant filed the OP seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- along with costs and interest claiming that he was dependant on the earnings of the deceased. 4. Before the Tribunal, the respondent No.1 remained absent and was set ex parte. The respondent No.2 insurer filed a counter denying that the deceased was travelling as an authorized passenger in the crime vehicle and as such, it was not liable to pay compensation. 5. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A4. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent No.2. 6. A perusal of the order of the tribunal below shows that after considering the pleadings and material on record, the tribunal below arrived at the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Though no documentary evidence was filed in proof of the age the deceased, the tribunal below took the age of the deceased as 19 years since the claim petition and the inquest report showed the age of the deceased as 19 years. Though no documentary evidence was filed in proof of the age the deceased, the tribunal below took the age of the deceased as 19 years since the claim petition and the inquest report showed the age of the deceased as 19 years. Insofar as the income of the deceased is concerned, though the claimant stated that the deceased was earning Rs.4,500/- per month, the tribunal below by relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in LATHA WADHWA v. STATE OF BIHAR, (2001) ACJ 1735 (SC) and NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. R. GOVINDARAJU,2007 2 ALT 504 , took the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/-. After deducting 1/3rd and applying the appropriate multiplier, the loss of income was arrived at Rs.3,84,000/- and by adding compensation under various heads, the tribunal below awarded total compensation of Rs.4,09,000/- with proportionate costs and interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization payable jointly and severally by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. 7. Aggrieved by the award passed by the tribunal below, the quantum of compensation awarded under various heads and the liability imposed, the appellant - insurance company is before this Court in this appeal. 8. Heard both sides. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was an unauthorized and gratuitous passenger since the seating capacity of the crime vehicle as per the insurance policy is 1 to 5. However, nine persons were travelling in the said vehicle. The names of the deceased and P.W.1 were not shown in the FIR under Ex.A1. The owner of the vehicle violated the terms of the insurance policy and as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation. Learned counsel also submits that the tribunal below has erroneously taken the income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and the age of the deceased as 19 years without there being any proof. 10. It is settled law that the insurance company cannot be exonerated merely because the owner of the crime vehicle or the driver of the vehicle has violated the terms of the insurance policy. The Supreme Court in MANUARA KHATUN v. RAJESH KR. SINGH, (2017) 4 SCC 796 laid down the principle of 'pay and recover'. 10. It is settled law that the insurance company cannot be exonerated merely because the owner of the crime vehicle or the driver of the vehicle has violated the terms of the insurance policy. The Supreme Court in MANUARA KHATUN v. RAJESH KR. SINGH, (2017) 4 SCC 796 laid down the principle of 'pay and recover'. The insurance company is liable to pay the compensation and later recover the same from the owner/driver of the vehicle in case there is violation of terms of the insurance policy. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the insurance company is without any force. 11. Learned counsel for the insurance company further submits that as per the FIR, the police report was given by one Seetharamulu, Vice-Sarpanch of Yenkepally Village and he did not give the names of the injured or the deceased. Hence, it cannot be said with certainty that the claimant was travelling in the crime vehicle along with the deceased at the time of the accident. 12. However, nothing is elicited in the cross-examination of the claimant (P.W.1) to discredit his statement that he travelled in the vehicle along with his deceased wife. Merely because the informant i.e. Vice-Sarpanch did not name the deceased in the FIR, it cannot be inferred that there is a doubt about the death of the deceased on account of the accident caused by the crime vehicle. There is no dispute that the deceased died in a road accident. The details of the crime vehicle and its registration number are mentioned in the FIR. It is not the case of the appellant - insurance company that the crime vehicle did not ply on the outskirts of the Yenkepally village road on the date of the accident or that there was any independent evidence on its behalf to rebut the case of the claimant. Hence, the case of the claimant has to be taken as being proved. In view of the above observations, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.