JUDGMENT : B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHI, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the Appellant/Insurance Company, challenging the award dated 05.10.2015 passed in M.V.O.P. No. 270/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Addl. District Judge, Ongole, wherein the Tribunal while allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs. 5,79,068/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of Shaik Naseema, in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as parties before the Tribunal. 3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s. 163 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of the death of Shaik Naseema, who is the wife of the 1st petitioner, mother of the petitioners No. 2 and 3, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 26.06.2011. 4. The facts show that on 26.06.2011 the 1st petitioner engaged the 1st respondent’s tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-26-AJ-1194 and AP-26-AJ-1195 to transport the welding machine and other articles and the 1st petitioner along with deceased Shaik Naseema went to Hanumakondapalem cross road and the deceased raised the shop and while returning in the said tractor, at about 06.45 p.m., the 1st respondent drove the said tractor in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and turned the tractor into Hanumakondapalem cross road and lost control over the tractor and turned turtle. Due to that the deceased, who was travelling in the tractor and trailer along with goods fell down from the trailer and the wheels of the tractor ran over the head of the deceased, and she died on the spot and on the report of defacto-complaint, the Station House Officer, Jaladanki Police Station was registered as case in Cr. No. 48/2011 U/s. 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of tractor and trailer. 5. No. 48/2011 U/s. 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of tractor and trailer. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, 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 offending vehicle, liability to pay compensation, and contended that the driver of tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-26-AJ-1194 and AP-26-AJ-1195 is not having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident, and the petition filed by petitioners against the 2nd respondent is not maintainable. 6. The 1st respondent remained ex-parte. 7. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-26-AJ-1194 and trailer bearing No. AP-26-AJ-1195? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for any compensation? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 8. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, RWs. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 and Exs.X-1 to X-3 were marked. 9. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-4, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of driver of the tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-26-AJ-1194 and AP-26-AJ-1195, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of PW-1, corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-4, awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,79,068/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. 10. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the owner of the crime vehicle i.e., tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-26-AJ-1194 and AP-26-AJ-1195, inspite of the evidence that the deceased was travelling in the tractor and trailer as gratuitous passenger only and as per Ex.B-1, no premium was paid covering the risk of the gratuitous passenger. The other contention of the Insurance Company is that the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation without evidence. 11. The other contention of the Insurance Company is that the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation without evidence. 11. In the light of above contentions of the appellant raised in the appeal, the points that would arise for consideration in the appeal are as under: 1. Whether the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-26-AJ-1194 and AP-26-AJ-1195? 2. Whether the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive? 3. To what relief? 12. POINT No. 1: The case of the claimants is that on 26.06.2011, the 1st claimant, who is husband of the deceased engaged the tractor and trailer of the 1st respondent to transport the welding machine and other articles, and thereafter, the deceased and the 1st claimant travelled in the tractor and trailer bearing No. AP-26-AJ-1194 and AP-26-AJ-1195 and went to Hanumakondapalem cross road to open a new shop and after completing the work, they were returning in the same tractor at about 06.45 p.m. the driver of the tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, and as a result, the tractor turned turtle, the deceased fell down from the tractor and died due to injuries sustained in the accident. Later, the 1st claimant presented a report to Jaladanki Police and they registered a case in Cr. No. 48/2011 for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A of Indian Penal Code against the driver of the tractor (1st respondent), and after completion of investigation, they laid police report (charge-sheet) against the 1st respondent for the offence punishable U/s. 304-A of Indian Penal Code. 13. The claimants in order to prove that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, have examined the 1st claimant, who is husband of the deceased and travelling in the tractor at the time of accident. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was also travelling in the tractor at the time of accident. Police registered FIR (Ex.A-1) basing on the report presented by the 1st claimant. Police investigated the case and filed police report (charge sheet) (Ex.A-3) against the 1st respondent opining that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. Police registered FIR (Ex.A-1) basing on the report presented by the 1st claimant. Police investigated the case and filed police report (charge sheet) (Ex.A-3) against the 1st respondent opining that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. The appellant/Insurance Company in its counter contended that the accident was not occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the 1st respondent, but it did not choose to examine the 1st respondent to speak about the way in which the accident occurred. Nothing was elicited in the cross-examination of PW-1 by the appellant to say that the accident was not occurred due to rash or negligent driving of the 1st respondent. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent. 14. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the deceased was travelling in the tractor and trailer unauthorisedly as gratuitous passenger and as per Ex.B-1 copy of insurance policy, the risk of the gratuitous passengers is not covered. The appellant/Insurance Company in support of its contention examined two witnesses. RW-1 is the Senior Manager working in appellant company. He deposed that as per registration certificate, the tractor can be used only for agricultural purposes and not permitted to carry any passengers, and the policy issued by the appellant/Insurance Company does not cover the risk of the gratuitous passengers, and therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent, who is owner-cum-driver of the tractor involved in the accident. 15. RW-2 is an official from Regional Transport Office, Nellore. He deposed hat Ex.X-2 is the registration certificate pertaining to the tractor bearing No. AP-26-AJ-1194, which is the crime vehicle in the case and Ex.X-3 is copy of registration certificate relating to the trailer bearing No. AP-26-AJ-1195. As per Exs.X-2 and X-3, both were registered as non-transport vehicles and they can be used only for agricultural purpose, and the seating capacity of the tractor is one and there is no seating capacity for the trailer. 16. RW-1 in the cross-examination admitted that the driver of the tractor is having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. 16. RW-1 in the cross-examination admitted that the driver of the tractor is having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. He also admitted that the trailer cannot independently move, unless it is attached to the tractor, and if the tractor is a light motor vehicle and as per the charge sheet, the deceased was travelling in the tractor at the time of accident. 17. The above facts and circumstances would establish that the tractor and trailer involved in the accident were registered with Road Transport Authority, Nellore, and they were registered for the use of agricultural purpose, and Ex.B-1 policy was issued for the tractor covering the risk of third parties only, and no additional premium was paid covering the risk of passengers travelling in the tractor or trailer. Therefore, the 1st respondent violated the terms of Ex.B-1 policy by carrying gratuitous passengers in the tractor-cum-trailer at the time of accident. In that view of the matter, the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable jointly with the 1st respondent for payment of compensation. However, in the similar circumstances, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Manuara Khatun and Others vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others, (2017) 4 SCC 796 , Anu Bhanvara vs. Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, 2019 (5) ALD SC 287 directed the insurer to pay the awarded sum to the claimant therein, and recover the same from the insured in the same proceedings. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shivaraj vs. Rajendran and Another, AIR 2018 SC 4252 held in Para 10 as under: “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 claimant (appellant) 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. vs. Swaran Singh and Others, Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, Rani and Others vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others and including Manuara Khatun and Others vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 2. Ltd. vs. Swaran Singh and Others, Mangla Ram vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, Rani and Others vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others and including Manuara Khatun and Others vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to respondent No. 2 Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner (respondent No. 1).” 19. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shivaraj vs. Rajendran and Another stated above, the principle of ‘pay and recovery’ be applied directing the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company to first pay the compensation amount to the claimants and to recover the same later from the owner (R-1) of the tractor-cum-trailer in the same proceedings. 20. In that view of the matter the finding of the Tribunal has to be modified partly, holding that the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company shall first pay the compensation amount and can recover the same later from the owner (R-1) of the tractor in the same proceedings as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, by applying the principle of pay and recovery. Accordingly, this point is answered. 21. POINT No. 2: The deceased is the wife of PW-1, who is 1st claimant in the case. The claimants No. 2 and 3 are the minor children of the deceased. The case of the claimants is that as the deceased was doing coolie work and earning a sum of Rs. 4,000/- per month at the time of accident and contributing the same to the family. The Tribunal notionally calculated the income of the deceased and arrived the same at Rs. 4,000/- per month. The accident occurred in the year 2011. Hence, the earnings of a coolie in the year 2011 would be at least at Rs. 150/- per day. Therefore, the income fixed by the Tribunal notionally at Rs. 4,000/- per month cannot be held as excessive. 22. The Tribunal by applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Another vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and Others, 2009 ACJ 1298 deducted 1/3 of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. The deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident. 22. The Tribunal by applying the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sarla Verma and Another vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and Others, 2009 ACJ 1298 deducted 1/3 of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased. The deceased was aged 27 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal applied the multiplier ‘17’ as per the above judgment. The total compensation towards loss of dependency is Rs. 2,667 x 12 x 17 = Rs. 5,44,068/-. 23. As per the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 the claimants are also entitled to Rs. 15,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of estate. As per judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and Others, 2018 ACJ 2782 the claimants No. 2 and 3, who are the minor children of the deceased are also entitled to loss of parental consortium @ Rs. 40,000/- each. The total would come to Rs. 5,44,068 + 15,000 + 15,000 + 40,000 + 40,000 = Rs. 6,54,068/-. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,79,068/-. In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company that the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation is not valid. 24. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and Others vs. Sajjan Singh Yadaav and Others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 734 held that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. The law is well settled that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Therefore, though the claimants sought for a lesser amount, and the claim petition being valued at lesser value for Rs. 3,00,000/- the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded is Rs. 5,79,068/-. In that view of the matter, awarding of Rs. 5,79,068/- by the Tribunal towards compensation against the claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- by the claimants, cannot be held as illegal. Accordingly, the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company do not hold any merit. 3,00,000/- the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded is Rs. 5,79,068/-. In that view of the matter, awarding of Rs. 5,79,068/- by the Tribunal towards compensation against the claim of Rs. 3,00,000/- by the claimants, cannot be held as illegal. Accordingly, the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company do not hold any merit. Accordingly, this point is answered. 25. POINT No. 3: To what relief? In the light of the findings on Points No. 1 and 2, the order passed by the Tribunal is liable to be modified partly. 26. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order of the Tribunal as follows: The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed to first pay the compensation amount of Rs. 5,79,068/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Seventy Nine Thousand and Sixty Eight only) with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, within one month from the date of judgment. Later it can recover the said amount from the 1st respondent/owner (insured) of the crime vehicle in the very same proceedings by filing execution application against the insured. The order passed by the Tribunal regarding apportionment of compensation amount among the claimants, and payment of deficit court fee by the claimants before the Tribunal etc., are holds good. There shall be no order as to costs. 27. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.