JUDGMENT : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the appellants/2nd and 3rd respondents insurance company under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act challenging the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, in M.V.O.P.No.67 of 2011 wherein and whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the death of Mr. B. Gopal Singh(herein after referred to as "the deceased") in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 23.11.2008 at 6.00 a.m. on N.H.7 road near a temple at Chinnatekur village. 2. The appellants, R7 and R1 to R6 are hereinafter referred to as R2, R3, R1 and petitioners/claimants, for the sake of brevity and convenience. 3. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal in brief is that first petitioner is the wife, petitioners 2 to 5 are children and petitioner No.6 is mother of the deceased, who was working as police constable in Ulindakonda Police Station and was getting a salary of Rs.19,525/- who also undergone Head Constable training and was waiting for promotion as Head Constable. It is the contention of the petitioners that on 23.11.2008 at about 6.00 a.m. on N.H.7 near Ramalayam temple at Chinnatekur village, while the deceased was crossing the road, the first respondent being owner cum driver of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP-21-P-7381 and AP-21-T-2396 drove the tractor in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased, as a result of which deceased sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. They submit that the deceased died due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which insured with respondents 2 and 3. They claimed compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- on various heads. 4. The first respondent driver of offending vehicle remained ex parte and not chosen to contest the case. 5. The third respondent – insurance company filed counter denying the averments in the petition. It is the contention of the third respondent that there was no negligence on the part of R1, but accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the deceased. They submit that R1 had no valid driving licence on the date of the accident, thereby owner of the vehicle violated terms and conditions of the policy, due to that they are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 6. They submit that R1 had no valid driving licence on the date of the accident, thereby owner of the vehicle violated terms and conditions of the policy, due to that they are not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 6. Basing on the above pleadings, the Tribunal has framed the following issues for trial : 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor-trailer bearing No.AP-21-P-7381 and AP-21-T-2396? 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- or to what just amount and from whom the same shall be recovered? 3. To what relief? 7. On behalf of petitioners-claimants, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, Ex.A1 to Ex.A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined, Exs.B1, B2 and X1 to X6 were marked. 8. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- to the petitioners with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation and it is also directed the third respondent to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners then recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal, the appellants/R2 and R3 insurance company has preferred the present appeal stating that judgment and decree of the Tribunal is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. They submit that the Tribunal ought not to have granted pay and recovery as they have proved that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy as driver of offending vehicle had no valid driving licence. They pray to allow the appeal. 10. I have heard both sides. 11. They submit that the Tribunal ought not to have granted pay and recovery as they have proved that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy as driver of offending vehicle had no valid driving licence. They pray to allow the appeal. 10. I have heard both sides. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence, who got driving licence to drive auto rickshaw non-transport and LMV non-transport vehicle, which was valid up to 20.06.2026, whereas, it was converted to auto rickshaw transport and Motor cab on 06.09.2005 valid up to 05.09.2008 only, which shows that on the date of accident, driver was not having valid driving licence, thereby owner violated terms and conditions of the policy, due to that, Tribunal ought not to have directed the appellants to pay compensation amount and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. He would further submit that the Tribunal has erroneously granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and also granted compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards care and guidance for children which is not permissible in view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, 2017 ACJ 2700 in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25990 of 2014 judgment dated 31.10.2017. He prays to allow the appeal. 12. The learned counsel for R2 to R6/claimants would submit that lower Tribunal after considering the evidence adduced on both sides which also reduced 20% towards contributory negligence on the part of the deceased awarded just compensation to the claimants which needs no interference. He prays to dismiss the appeal. 13. Now the point that emerges for consideration by this Court is, “Whether the Tribunal is justified in awarding compensation to R2 to R6 by directing the appellants to pay the compensation at first instance and recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle?” 14. This petition is filed by the petitioners/claimants under Section 166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This petition is filed by the petitioners/claimants under Section 166(1)(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Though proof of negligence is a sine quo non to maintain a petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, when criminal case records proved on record, if remain unrebutted and unchallenged can be taken to be sufficient to establish the rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. Even when any party wants the Court to believe that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the victim, it has to be proved by adducing cogent evidence and Court cannot substitute its own judgment with that of witness (vide decision in Bimla Devi and Others, Appellants Vs. Road Transport Corporation and others, Respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2538 of 2009, Judgment dated 15.04.2009). In Anita Sharma and others Vs. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos.4010-4011 of 2020, judgment dated 08.12.2020 the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated the dictum that the standard of proof in motor vehicle accident cases is on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt. The Hon'ble Apex Court followed the ratio laid down in Bimla Devi’s Case, referred supra). 15. In the present case also petitioners have examined P.W.2, who said to be an eyewitness to the accident who also cited as one of the witness in the criminal case registered against the driver of the vehicle. The lower Tribunal also considered the evidence of P.W.2, an eye witness to the accident, who deposed that deceased was in hurry in order to board lorry due to that Tribunal has assessed 20% as contributory negligence on the part of the deceased for the cause of the accident. The criminal case record proved on record supports the contention of the petitioners/claimants the manner in which the accident occurred which rightly discussed by the Tribunal which needs no interference. 16. The main contention of the respondents 2 and 3/appellants is that though the Tribunal came to the conclusion that R1 had no valid driving licence on the date of accident directed them to pay compensation to the petitioners at first instance and to recover the same from owner of the offending vehicle, which is not permissible. The lower Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. The lower Tribunal relied on the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others, Judgment dated 05.01.2014 and held that there is no fundamental breach of conditions of the policy as R1 being driver of the offending vehicle had driving licence but he was not having transport driving licence to drive tractor-cum-trailer vehicle. The Tribunal also followed the ratio laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Iyyapan Vs. United Insurance Company Limited and another, 2013 ACJ 1944 , wherein it is held at Paras 17 and 18 which reads as under : “17. The heading “Insurance of Motor Vehicles against Third Party Risks” given in Chapter XI of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Chapter VIII of 1939 Act) itself shows the intention of the legislature to make third party insurance compulsory and to ensure that the victims of accident arising out of use of motor vehicles would be able to get compensation for the death or injuries suffered. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the persons travelling in vehicles or using the road from the risk attendant upon the user of the motor vehicles on the road. To overcome this ugly situation, the legislature has made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless a third party insurance is in force. 18. Reading the provisions of Sections 146 and 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is evidently clear that in certain circumstances the insurer’s right is safeguarded but in any event the insurer has to pay compensation when a valid certificate of insurance is issued notwithstanding the fact that the insurer may proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount. Under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurer can defend the action inter alia on the grounds, namely, (i) the vehicle was not driven by a named person, (ii) it was being driven by a person who was not having a duly granted licence, and (iii) person driving the vehicle was disqualified to hold and obtain a driving licence. Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy.” 17. A direction to pay and recover is well recognized when the claimants are third parties and when the deceased was not unauthorized passenger in the offending vehicle as admittedly deceased was crossing the road while motor vehicle accident took place. This Court is of an opinion that there is no illegality or irregularity in the directions given by the Tribunal to pay the compensation to the petitioners at first instance and then recover the same from owner of offending vehicle. 18. The judicial dictum evolved on the principles of assessing compensation under the following heads : "(i) Loss of dependency, (ii) loss of consortium, loss of estate, funeral expenses and (iii) contributory negligence, if any." 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others, Appellants Vs. Delhi Transport Corporation & another, Respondents, AIR 2009 SC 3104 , laid down that the important factors to be considered while assessing compensation are:- (a) age of the deceased at the time of his death; (b) income of the deceased at the time of death ; and (c) the number of dependents left behind. To adequately take into account all these factors in calculating loss of dependency, the following methodology was adopted:- Actual income of the deceased per annum (-) personal and living expenses of the deceased (+) future prospects (x) multiplier. The actual income is based on income less tax if the income is within taxable. The Hon'ble Apex Court Constitutional Bench in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 , approved the ratio and multiplier as held in Smt. Sarla Verma's case referred supra. The actual income is based on income less tax if the income is within taxable. The Hon'ble Apex Court Constitutional Bench in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, 2017 ACJ 2700 , approved the ratio and multiplier as held in Smt. Sarla Verma's case referred supra. Now, it would be beneficial to quote para "16" of Pranay Sethi’s case which reads as under:- “[61] In view of the aforesaid analysis, we proceed to record our conclusions:- (i) The two-Judge Bench in Santosh Devi should have been well advised to refer the matter to a larger Bench as it was taking a different view than what has been stated in Sarla Verma, a judgment by a coordinate Bench. It is because a coordinate Bench of the same strength cannot take a contrary view than what has been held by another coordinate Bench. (ii) As Rajesh has not taken note of the decision in Reshma Kumari, which was delivered at earlier point of time, the decision in Rajesh is not binding precedent. (iii) While determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. The addition should be 30%, if the age of the deceased was between 40 to 50 years. In case the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years, the addition should be 15%. Actual salary should be read as actual salary less tax. (iv) In case the deceased was self-employed or on a fixed salary, an addition of 40% of the established income should be the warrant where the deceased was below the age of 40 years. An addition of 25% where the deceased was between the age of 40 to 50 years and 10% where the deceased was between the age of 50 to 60 years should be regarded as the necessary method of computation. The established income means the income minus the tax component. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (v) For determination of the multiplicand, the deduction for personal and living expenses, the tribunals and the courts shall be guided by paragraphs 30 to 32 of Sarla Verma which we have reproduced hereinbefore. (vi) The selection of multiplier shall be as indicated in the Table in Sarla Verma read with paragraph 42 of that judgment. (vii) The age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. (viii) Reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively. The aforesaid amounts should be enhanced at the rate of 10% in every three years.” 20. The Tribunal after considering the above referred heads awarded compensation to the petitioners after considering the age and income of the deceased and number of dependants left by him on the date of his death in the motor vehicle accident. The Hon'ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi (referred supra) relied on by learned counsel for the appellants held that reasonable figures on conventional heads, i.e., loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs.15,000/-, Rs.40,000/- and Rs.15,000/- respectively and the said aforesaid amounts should be enhanced @ 10% for every three years. In the present case, Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.13,17,782/- towards loss of dependency, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium, a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of care and guidance, and a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards funeral expenses, but not granted any amount towards loss of estate and granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of consortium and also Rs.1,00,000/- towards care and guidance for children, which is not permissible. The Tribunal can award a sum of Rs.40,000/- to each of the petitioners towards loss of consortium and love and affection, a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of estate and Rs.15,000/- towards funeral expenses. If a sum of Rs.40,000/- each to the petitioners towards loss of consortium and love and affection is added and a sum of Rs.15,000/- + Rs/.15,000/- is added towards loss of estate and loss of funeral expenses respectively, it will come to more than Rs.15,00,000/-, but the Tribunal awarded compensation to the petitioners only Rs.15,00,000/- by observing that though the petitioners are entitled to more than Rs.15,00,000/-, their claim is only Rs.15,00,000/-. There is no cross appeal by respondents 1 to 6/claimants. There is no cross appeal by respondents 1 to 6/claimants. The compensation which granted by the Tribunal to the petitioners/respondents 1 to 6 is just and reasonable, and it needs no interference of this Court. 21. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed with costs. The appellants/R2 and R3 shall deposit balance of compensation amount with accrued interest as awarded by the Tribunal after deducting the amount, which already they deposited, within a period of two months from the date of this order. On such deposit, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw their share of compensation amount as apportioned by the Tribunal with accrued interest. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. Interim order granted shall stand vacated.