JUDGMENT : The appellant is the second respondent in M.V.O.P.No.665 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Anantapur and the respondents are the petitioners and first respondent in the said case. 2. Both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in claim application. 3. The claimants filed a Claim Petition under sections 140 and 166 of Motor Vehicles Act against the respondents by praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation on account of death of deceased Dasari Narasimhulu in a Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on 18.06.2011. 4. The case of the claimants is that on 18.06.2011 at about 9.00 a.m. while the deceased was travelling in a Tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 02 W 548 and 549 as a coolie, the driver of tractor drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the tractor turned turtle, resulting which the deceased Dasari Narasimhulu sustained grievous injuries, later succumbed to injuries and the petitioners claimed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the death of deceased Narasimhulu. 5. The first respondent remained exparte. The second respondent filed counter by denying the claim application and contended that the claimants are not entitled any compensation and the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. 6. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle/ tractor and trailer which involved in the accident driven the same in a rash and negligent manner causing the accident? ii. Whether the deceased Dasari Narasimhulu was an unauthorized passenger in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident? iii. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle had valid driving licence on the date of accident? iv. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, from which respondent and to what extent? v. To what relief? 7. On behalf of the petitioners, PW1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked. On behalf of respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked. 8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the first claimant towards compensation. 9. On behalf of respondents RW1 was examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked. 8. After considering the evidence on record, the Tribunal has given a finding that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle and the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to the first claimant towards compensation. 9. Aggrieved by the same, the second respondent/Insurance company filed the present appeal. 10. Now, the point for consideration is: Whether the Order of Tribunal needs any interference? 11. POINT:- The averments in the petition filed by the claimants clearly goes to show that petitioner No.1 is the wife, petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of the deceased and the deceased was aged about 65 years and hale and healthy and earning Rs.5,000/- per month by doing coolie works and maintaining his family. 12. The further averments in the petition filed by the claimants are that on 18.06.2011 at about 9.00 a.m. while the deceased was travelling in a tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 02 W 548 and 549 as a coolie, the driver of the offending vehicle, drove the same in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, it was turned turtle, due to that the deceased sustained grievous injuries, then immediately the deceased was shifted to Government General Hospital, Dharmavaram in an ambulance and from there he was shifted to Kurnool Government Hospital, later the deceased succumbed to injuries. First respondent was set exparte. Second respondent filed counter by pleading that the deceased was unauthorized passenger in the tractor and that the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 13. In order to prove the case of the petitioners, the first petitioner herself got examined as PW1 and got exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. The evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1 attested copy of First Information Report and Ex.A3 certified copy of charge sheet clearly goes to show that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the tractor and trailer only the accident was occurred and the deceased, who is travelling in the said tractor, fell down and sustained severe injuries, later succumbed to injuries. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, because of the rash and negligent driving of first respondent driver only, the accident was occurred. 14. Therefore, in view of the above reasons, because of the rash and negligent driving of first respondent driver only, the accident was occurred. 14. In order to prove the claim of the petitioners, the first petitioner got exhibited Ex.A2 attested copy of wound certificate and Ex.A4 death certificate of deceased Narasimhulu. The learned Tribunal by giving cogent reasons dismissed the petition against the petitioners 2 and 3 and the learned Tribunal by giving cogent reasons granted an amount of Rs.84,000/- to the first petitioner towards contribution of the deceased to the first petitioner who is the wife of the deceased. The learned Tribunal also granted an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.6,000/- towards funeral expenses. The learned Tribunal rightly came to conclusion that the first petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards total compensation. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the said quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 15. It is the contention of the learned counsel for Insurance Company that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as an unauthorized passenger, no policy was issued to the trailer and the second respondent/ Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. Here it is to be seen there is no separate engine to the trailer, without the tractor, trailer cannot move. As per the material available on record, the crime vehicle/Tractor was insured with Insurance Company under Ex.B1 copy of policy and the driver of the tractor and trailer also possessed valid driving licence to drive the tractor. Therefore, since the driver of tractor is having valid and effective driving licence by the date of accident and the crime vehicle is insured with 2nd respondent Insurance Company and the policy is also on force and in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India (three Judge Bench) of Singh ram Vs. Nirmala and others, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 191, the Insurance Company shall pay the claim at first instance and later recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle. 16. In the judgment of Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Nirmala and others, 2018 Law Suit (SC) 191, the Insurance Company shall pay the claim at first instance and later recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle. 16. In the judgment of Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others, (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 796 it was held that the direction to United India Insurance Company Limited being the insurer of the offending vehicle which was found involved in causing accident due to negligence of its driver needs to be issued directing them (United India Insurance Company Limited/ respondent No.3) to first pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants) and then to recover the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle without filing any independent suit by filing an Execution Petition against the owner of the crime vehicle. 17. Accordingly, the 2nd respondent/ Insurance company is directed to pay the total claim of Rs.1,00,000/- to the first petitioner at first instance, later recover the same from respondent No.1 by filing Execution Petition without filing independent suit, since first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. 18. In the result, this appeal is disposed of, by modifying the order dated 18.12.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.665 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge (FTC), Anantapur. It is held that the first petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with interest @7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of payment. The 2nd respondent/ Insurance Company is directed to pay the claim amount, within one month from the date of this judgment, to the first claimant at first instance and later recover the same from respondent No.1 by filing an Execution Petition and without filing any independent suit. On such deposit, the first claimant is entitled to withdraw the same along with costs and accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this appeal shall stand closed.