JUDGMENT : 1. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in the order and decree, dated 02.05.2014 passed in O.P.No.714 of 2010 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Nizamabad (for short “the Tribunal”), the appellants/claimants preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal. 3. The facts, in issue, are as under: 4. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- for the death of one Katike Lal @ Khureshi Lal (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), who died in a motor vehicle accident. It is stated that on 14.06.2010 at about 4.00 P.M., the deceased was returning from Navipet to Naleshwar Village on his TVS XL No.AP 28 AR 8221 and when he reached near Shakapur Village Shivar, one Tractor bearing No.AP 25 R 0699 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed against the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, the deceased fell down, sustained crush injuries and died on the spot. As the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor, the claimants filed the claim-petition against the respondents 1 and 2, being the owner and insurer of the said Tractor. 5. The 1st respondent filed written statement denying the manner in which the accident took place including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further stated that the Tractor was insured with the 2nd respondent and the policy was in force as on the date of accident and if the claimants are entitled for any compensation, the same may be awarded against the 2nd respondent only. 6. The 2nd respondent filed written statement denying the manner in which the accident took place including the age, avocation and income of the deceased. It is further stated the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased and the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is also stated that the driver of the Tractor was not holding valid licence at the time of alleged accident and that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and baseless and prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. It is also stated that the driver of the Tractor was not holding valid licence at the time of alleged accident and that the quantum of compensation claimed is excessive and baseless and prayed to dismiss the petition. 7. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of Tractor No.AP 25 R 0699 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? 8. On behalf of the claimants, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 9. After considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was occurred due to the negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and accordingly awarded an amount of Rs.6,00,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization to be paid by the 1st respondent only as there was a breach of policy conditions. Challenging the same, the present appeal came to be filed by the claimants. 10. Heard and perused the record. 11. A perusal of the impugned judgment would show that the Tribunal has framed Issue No.1 as to whether the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, to which the Tribunal after considering the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with the documentary evidence, has categorically observed that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tractor and has answered in favour of the claimants and against the respondents. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Tractor. 12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was working in Beedi Company and earning Rs.12,000/-per month, the Tribunal taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- stating that the claimants failed to produce any document to show that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. 12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, though the claimants claimed that the deceased was working in Beedi Company and earning Rs.12,000/-per month, the Tribunal taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,500/- stating that the claimants failed to produce any document to show that the deceased was earning Rs.12,000/- per month. The Apex Court in catena of decisions held that in motor vehicle accident cases, even there is no proof of income the earnings can reasonably be estimated. Therefore, this Court is inclined to take the income of the deceased at Rs.4,500/- per month. Apart from the same, the claimants are entitled to addition of 40% towards future prospects, as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 . Therefore, monthly income of the deceased comes to Rs.6,300/-(Rs.4,500/- + Rs.1800/-). From this, 1/3rd is to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased following Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, 2009 ACJ 1298 (SC). After deducting 1/3rd amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.4,200/- per month and Rs.50,400/- per annum. Since the age of the deceased was 40 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is ‘15’ as per the decision reported in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2 supra). Adopting multiplier ‘15’, the total loss of dependency would be Rs.50,400/- x 15, which comes to Rs.7,56,000/-. The claimants are also entitled to Rs.77,000/- under the conventional heads as per Pranay Sethi’s case (1 supra). Thus, in all the claimants are entitled to Rs.8,33,000/-. 13. At this stage, the learned Standing counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the claimant claimed only a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- as compensation and the quantum of compensation which is now awarded would go beyond the claim made, which is impermissible under law. 14. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, (2011) 10 SCC 756 , the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. 14. In Laxman @ Laxman Mourya Vs. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited and another, (2011) 10 SCC 756 , the Apex Court while referring to Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh, 2003 ACJ 12 (SC) held as under : “It is true that in the petition filed by him under Section 166 of the Act, the appellant had claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- only, but as held in Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh (2003) 2 SCC 274 , in the absence of any bar in the Act, the Tribunal and for that reason any competent Court is entitled to award higher compensation to the victim of an accident.” 15. In view of the Judgments of the Apex Court referred to above the claimants are entitled to get more amount than what has been claimed. Further the Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial piece of legislation, where the interest of the claimants is a paramount consideration the Courts should always endeavour to extend the benefit to the claimants to a just and reasonable extent. 16. Coming to the aspect of liability of payment of compensation, admittedly, as seen from Ex.A2-charge sheet, the driver of the tractor was charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 304-A of I.P.C. and Section 181 of M.V.Act and R.W.1 has categorically deposed that the driver of the Tractor was not possessing valid driving licence, therefore, there is a breach of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy as rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance company. But the fact remains that by the time of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent and Ex.B.1 policy was very much in force. In the case of third party risks, as per the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , the insurer had to indemnify the compensation amount payable to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured. In the case of third party risks, as per the decision in National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 , the insurer had to indemnify the compensation amount payable to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured. In the said decision, the Apex Court considered the doctrine of "pay and recover" examined the liability of the insurance company in cases of breach of policy condition due to disqualifications of the driver or invalid driving license of the driver and held that in case of third party risks, the insurer has to indemnify the compensation amount to the third party and the insurance company may recover the same from the insured. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Shamanna v. The Divisional Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and Others, 2018 ACJ 2163 , following its earlier decision in Swaran Singh (6 supra), reiterated that “even if the driver does not possess any driving license, still the insurer is liable to pay the compensation and that he can recover the award amount from the owner of the offending vehicle after paying the amount.” In view of the above, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount at the first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 17. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.8,33,000/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of passing of award by the Tribunal till the date of realization. The claimants are directed to pay Deficit Court Fee on the enhanced amount. However, following the doctrine ‘pay and recover’, the 2nd respondent-Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation amount to the appellants-claimants, at the first instance and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle i.e., the 1st respondent without initiating any separate proceedings. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.