JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by 2nd respondent/Insurance company challenging the award dated 25.02.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.554 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Judge, Kurnool, wherein the Tribunal while allowing the claim petition, awarded compensation of Rs.12,74,600/- with interest @ 7% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization, to the petitioners for the death of the deceased Nellipogu Amadaguntla Dasthagiri @ N.Dasthagiri. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as referred in the trial Court. 3. As seen from the record, originally, the petitioners filed an application U/s 166 (1) (c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- with interest and costs on account of the death of the deceased in a motor accident occurred on 06.08.2015 at about 2.00 a.m., near K.C. Canal Culvert at the outskirts of Kurnool while the deceased along with a pillion rider was going on a motor cycle from G.Singavaram village to his native village, Parla, under the jurisdiction of Kurnool Taluk Police Station. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the deceased worked as an auto rickshaw driver and earned Rs.9,000/- p.m., and maintaining his family which consists of the petitioners. On 06.08.2015 early hours the deceased along with Uppari Sunil was going on a motor cycle from G.Singavaram village to his native Village Parla and when he reached K.C. Canal culvert at the outskirts of Kurnool, an auto rickshaw bearing No. AP 21TY 7019 driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner at high speed came behind the motor cycle driven by the deceased and dashed the same, as a result the deceased as well as the pillion rider fell on the culvert and sustained grievous injuries. Both the injured were shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool in 108 Ambulance for treatment, where both of them died on the same day while undergoing treatment. The 1st respondent was the owner-cum-driver of the offending auto rickshaw and the 2nd respondent was the insurer. 5. The 1st respondent before the Tribunal remained exparte. Both the injured were shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool in 108 Ambulance for treatment, where both of them died on the same day while undergoing treatment. The 1st respondent was the owner-cum-driver of the offending auto rickshaw and the 2nd respondent was the insurer. 5. The 1st respondent before the Tribunal remained exparte. The appellant, who is the 2nd respondent in the claim petition, filed written statement resisting while traversing the material averments with regard to proof of age, avocation, monthly earnings of the deceased, manner of accident, rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the crime auto and liability to pay compensation and contended that the accident was occurred on account of the fault of the deceased and the 1st respondent had not complied the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the driving licence of the 1st respondent was suspended at the relevant time of the accident by the Regional Transport Authorities and therefore, the 2nd respondent was not liable to pay the amount of compensation. 6. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the owner-cum-driver of auto rickshaw AP 21TY 7019? 2. Whether the deceased Nellipogu Amadaguntla Dasthagiri @ N.Dasthgiri died in a road accident? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, and if so, what amount and against whom? 4. To what relief? 7. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. On behalf of 2nd respondent, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. 8. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A1 to A5 coupled with the evidence of R.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B6, held that the accident took place on account of the involvement of the 1st respondent as claimed by the petitioners and awarded a compensation of Rs.12,74,600/- with interest @ 7% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization with costs, fixing the liability on 1st respondent only on the ground that the 1st respondent did not have valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and thereby there was violation of terms of contract under Ex.B6 insurance policy. 9. 9. The plea of the insurance company is that in this particular case the crime vehicle was driven by the owner-cum-driver and hence there was fundamental breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy as the insured himself knowing very well drove the crime auto without possessing valid driving licence at the time of the accident and hence 2nd respondent is not liable to indemnify the insured. 10. The contention of the appellant-insurance company is that the Tribunal having noted that the accident was occurred during the period of suspension of the driving licence of the driver of the crime auto, who is none other than the owner of the auto, ought not to have mulcted the liability on the insurer and when once the driving licence was suspended by the Licensing Authority, during that period the driver shall not drive the vehicle and it shall be treated that he was not having licence at all to drive the vehicle during that period and therefore, the Tribunal ought not to have granted benefit to the claimants on the principle of pay and recovery as driver and owner are one and the same person, as per Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. The other contention of the appellant is that there is no piece of evidence with regard to the avocation of the deceased and therefore, fixing his income at Rs.6,000/- p.m., and adding future prospects is not correct and reasonable for awarding the compensation. 11. The case of the respondents/claimants is that on 06.08.2015 early hours the deceased/ Nellipogu Amadaguntla Dasthagiri @ N.Dasthagiri along with one Uppari Sunil was going on a motor cycle from G.Singavaram village to his native Village, Parla and the deceased was driving the motor cycle and he was going on the extreme left side of the road and at about 2.00 a.m., when they reached a place near K.C. culvert at the outskirts of Kurnool, the crime auto rickshaw came from behind and dashed the motor cycle and as a result, the deceased and the pillion rider of the motor cycle fell upon the culvert and suffered grievous injuries and they were shifted to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and while undergoing treatment both of them died on the same day and the cause of the accident was the rash and negligent driving of the auto by the auto driver. 12. 12. The appellant-insurance company filed written statement contending that the driving licence of the auto driver, who is the 1st respondent in the claim petition, was suspended during the period of the accident by the Regional Transport Authority and he was the owner of the crime vehicle and therefore, the insurance company is not liable for the claim. The Tribunal on issue „whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligence of the owner-cum-driver of the auto rickshaw’, upon consideration of the evidence of petitioners’ side and the documents produced by them, held that the accident was occurred on account of the rash and negligence of the 1st respondent-driver and in that accident the deceased and another person died. 13. The Tribunal upon consideration of Ex.B4 policy copy produced by the insurance company, held that the policy was subsisting on the date of the accident i.e., on 06.08.2015. R.W.1, who was examined by the insurance company deposed that Ex.B2 copy of the details of issuance of driving licence to the 1st respondent disclosed that his licence was issued on 17.01.1994, which was renewed from time to time and it was valid up to 30.06.2020 to drive transport vehicles and up to 06.07.2021 to drive non-transport vehicles and he was given a Badge No.9317, but it suffered suspension from 26.02.2015 to 25.08.2015 and further held that the licence was approved on 01.09.2015 and as of now the status of the licence was remained as approved as on the date of evidence of R.W.1. Ex.B3 is the attested copy of the „B’ Register extract relating to the offending auto rickshaw. It shows that it was having permit on the date of accident. R.W.1 in his evidence, in the cross-examination stated that he does not know the reason for suspension of the driving licence and suspension of driving licence was revoked as disclosed from Ex.B2 and observed that during the period of suspension the driver could not have driven the vehicles on road as deposed by R.W.1. The Tribunal considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramchandra Singh Vs. The Tribunal considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramchandra Singh Vs. Rajaram and others in Civil Appeal No.8145 of 2018, dt.14.08.2018 relied on by the learned counsel for the insurance company held that the circumstances in the case and the facts in the case relied on by the insurance company stand on a different footing, because in that case the driver of the offending vehicle had a fake driving licence and owner of the vehicle having known the said fact allowed the driver to drive the vehicle. In the case on hand, the driver, who was also owner of the vehicle was having valid driving licence to drive the crime vehicle, but it was ineffective on the date of accident as it was suspended. Reasons for suspension of the licence are not forthcoming. Therefore, it is not the case of the insurance company that the driver of the auto in the crime vehicle was not having competency to drive the crime vehicle in the case and therefore the accident was occurred. The insurance company before the Tribunal also relied on the judgment in the case of The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Sabitha Kumari and others, a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Patna, dt.18.03.2015. The Tribunal in its judgment in para No.29 observed as follows:- “Reliance is also place for the second respondent in “The Oriental Insurance Company Limited .Versus. Sabitha Kumari and others”, a judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Patna, dated 18-03-2015. It was a case where the driver had no licence at all, when the alleged accident occurred and when he had produced a fake licence. It was also a case where the owner himself was the driver of the offending vehicle. However, in Para17 of this ruling, the effect of award passed in such circumstances, basing on facts, making the insurer pay first and then recover from the insured, it was observed as under: “The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prem Kumari and others Vs. Prahlad Dev and others, (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 193 has held that even in the case that licence was fake, the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless it proves that the owner was aware or noticed that the license was fake and still permitted him to drive. Prahlad Dev and others, (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 193 has held that even in the case that licence was fake, the insurance company would continue to remain liable unless it proves that the owner was aware or noticed that the license was fake and still permitted him to drive. The concept of purposive interpretation has no application to cases relatable to Section 149 of the Act. Here, it has been proved beyond doubt that the owner, who was himself a driver, had no licence but still he himself was driving the vehicle. The Supreme Court in the above case directed the insurance company to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle in the same manner as directed in the case of Nanjappan case, (2004) 13 Supreme Court Cases 244. It appears that the Tribunal in that case held that the insurer was not liable as the driver had a fake license. The Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh directed the insurance company to recover the same from the owner.” 14. Therefore, the Tribunal relying on para No.17 of the said judgment observed that the insured shall first pay the amount and then recover from the insured. The Tribunal further held that the insurance company has obligation to first pay and then recover the same from the insured and relied upon the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 , which was approved and followed in Shamanna and another Vs. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others reported in AIR 2018 SC 3728 = 2018 (9) SCC 650 . 15. Therefore, in the case on hand, it is very clear that the driver of the vehicle has valid driving licence to drive the crime vehicle, but it was not in force on the date of accident as it was under suspension from 26.02.2015 to 25.08.2015 and it is also clear that it was revoked subsequently as deposed by R.W.1. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal has applied the principle of pay and recover by following the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others and Shamanna and another Vs. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal has applied the principle of pay and recover by following the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh and others and Shamanna and another Vs. The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others. In that view of the matter, I do not find any ground to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal in this regard. 16. The Tribunal considered the facts and circumstances of the case and fixed a sum of Rs.6,000/- as monthly income of the deceased against the contentions of the claimants that he was earning Rs.9,000/- p.m., as J.C.B., operator and the Tribunal following the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and others Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in 2009 ACJ 1298 SC and National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 calculated the compensation amount and arrived the sum at Rs.9,32,200/-. Therefore, I do not find any reasons to interfere with the compensation amount arrived and fixed by the Tribunal in this case. 17. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the Tribunal and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 18. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed confirming the Award dt.25.02.2019 passed in M.V.O.P.No.554 of 2015 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Prl. District Court, Kurnool. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.