JUDGMENT : This appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent/TATA AIG General Insurance Company Limited, Hyderabad, challenging the order dated 13.04.2015 passed in M.V.O.P.No.413/2012 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Court, Kakinada, East Godavari District, wherein the Tribunal while partly allowing the petition, awarded compensation of Rs.17,09,200/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit to the petitioners/claimants, for the death of Singampalli Babu Rao, in a motor vehicle accident. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are arrayed as referred before the Tribunal. 3. As seen from the record, originally the petitioners filed an application U/s.166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for brevity “the Act”) claiming compensation of Rs.45,00,000/-on account of the death of Singampalli Babu Rao, who is the husband of the 1st petitioner, father of the petitioners No.2 and 3, in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.05.2012. 4. The facts would show that on 13.05.2012 the 1st respondent along with Singampalli Babu Rao (deceased) as pillion rider went to Jaggampeta on a motor cycle bearing No. AP 05 BW 6532 belonging to 1st respondent; and when they reached opposite to Navodaya School, Peddapuram, at about 03.30 p.m., the 1st respondent drove the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the same; and dashed against one Simma Rambabu, who is standing by the side of the road; and then hit the cement electrical pole on the road margin; as a result, S.Babu Rao fell down from bike and sustained severe bleeding injuries and died on the spot; the injured S.Rambabu also sustained injuries and he was shifted to Govt. General Hospital, Kakinada; and while undergoing treatment S.Rambabu died on 14.05.2012. The Station House Officer, Peddapuram Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.115/2012 U/s.304-A and 337 of Indian Penal Code against the rider of motor cycle/1st respondent. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motor cycle by the 1st respondent. The deceased S.Babu Rao was aged 50 years by the time of accident and working as Public Health Worker and earning Rs.25,000/-per month. Due to the sudden and unexpected demise of S.Babu Rao, the petitioners lost their love and affection; and bread winner of the family. The deceased S.Babu Rao was aged 50 years by the time of accident and working as Public Health Worker and earning Rs.25,000/-per month. Due to the sudden and unexpected demise of S.Babu Rao, the petitioners lost their love and affection; and bread winner of the family. The 1st respondent is the rider of the motor cycle and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the said motor cycle and both are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the petitioners. 5. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent filed counter by denying the material averments of the petition; and contended that there was no negligence on his part while driving the motor cycle; and he is not responsible for the accident; The crime vehicle is having valid insurance policy issued by the 2nd respondent; the 2nd respondent is liable to pay the compensation. The compensation claimed by the petitioners is exorbitant. 6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed counter 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 accident was not occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1st respondent; The 1st respondent was not holding valid and effective driving license, and thus, he committed breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, which exonerate the Insurance Company to pay compensation to the petitioners; The petitioners No.2 and 3 are not dependents on the deceased, as they are majors and living separately; The alleged insurance policy issued to the crime vehicle is not covering the risk of the pillion rider of the motor cycle. 7. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed additional written statement contending that at the time of accident, the rider of the motor cycle allowed two persons to sit on the motor, which is triple riding, whereas the capacity of the motor cycle is 1 + 1; Therefore, the 1st respondent violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the deceased S.Babu Rao also contributed for the accident. 8. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. 8. On the strength of the pleadings of both parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the driver of the crime vehicle motor cycle bearing No.AP 05 BW 6532 was rash and negligent for causing the accident resulting the death of the deceased Singampalli Babu Rao in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.05.2012? 2. Whether the driver 1st respondent of the crime vehicle has possessed valid and effective driving license to drive the crime vehicle? 3. Whether the terms and conditions of the insurance policy of the crime vehicle are violated? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as claimed for in the petition with interest as claimed? 5. Whether the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioners? 6. To what relief? 9. To substantiate their claim, the petitioners examined P.Ws-1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Ex.X-1. On behalf of the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company, R.Ws-1 to 4 were examined and Exs.B-1 and B-2 and Ex.X-2 were marked. 10. The Tribunal, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3, coupled with Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Ex.X-1, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of rider of the motor cycle AP 05 BW 6532, and further, taking into consideration the evidence of P.Ws-1 to 3, corroborated by Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Ex.X-1, awarded compensation of Rs.17,09,200/-with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of deposit, after deducting 25% of compensation towards contributory negligence committed by the deceased-S.Babu Rao. 11. The contention of the Appellant/Insurance Company in this appeal is that the Tribunal erred in holding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners for the death of deceased in a motor vehicle accident, inspite of the evidence that the deceased was travelling on the motor cycle as pillion rider and as per Ex.B-1, no premium was paid covering the risk of the pillion rider. The other contention of the Insurance Company is that the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation without evidence. 12. 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 pay compensation to the petitioners? 2. Whether the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive? 3. 12. 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 pay compensation to the petitioners? 2. Whether the compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive? 3. To what relief? 13. POINT No.1: The counsel of the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the deceased, another and the 1st respondent-owner-cum-rider of the motor cycle bearing No.AP 05 BW 6532 are travelling on the two wheeler motor cycle at the time of accident, and in the accident, the deceased S.Babu Rao fell down from the motor cycle, sustained injuries and died on the spot, and therefore, three persons were travelling on the motor cycle at the time of accident, and it is violation of terms of the insurance policy, and also violation of law, as only two persons shall travel on the motor cycle, and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured, since the terms of the insurance policy are violated. 14. The learned counsel for respondents/claimants would submit that the Insurance Company shall indemnify the owner and even if it is contended that the terms of the insurance policy are violated by the owner/insured of the motor cycle, the Insurance Company shall first pay the compensation amount to the claimants, and later can recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle, in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases: 1) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others, 2004 (3) SCR 297. 2) Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others, 2017 (4) SCC 796 . 3) Anu Bhanvara etc., Vs. Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, 2019 (5) ALD SC 287. 15. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the deceased was travelling as pillion rider, and as per Ex.B-1 copy of insurance policy, the risk of the pillion rider is not covered. The appellant/Insurance Company in support of its contention, examined three witnesses as R.Ws-2 to 4. 16. R.W-2 is the Senior Executive Claims (Legal) working in appellant company. 15. The contention of the appellant/Insurance Company is that the deceased was travelling as pillion rider, and as per Ex.B-1 copy of insurance policy, the risk of the pillion rider is not covered. The appellant/Insurance Company in support of its contention, examined three witnesses as R.Ws-2 to 4. 16. R.W-2 is the Senior Executive Claims (Legal) working in appellant company. He deposed that there is valid insurance policy issued for the motor cycle bearing No. AP 05 BW 6532 and the insurance coverage is to the rider of the motor cycle, and he cannot say the reason for the accident. 17. R.W-3 is Head Constable of Peddapuram Police Station. He deposed that as per FIR and case diary, there are three persons travelling on the motor cycle at the time of accident and in the charge sheet also, there is a recital regarding triple riding. R.W-4 is M.V.Inspector, Peddapuram, and he deposed that the seating capacity of the motor cycle is 1 + 1. 18. Admittedly, the rider of the motor cycle is having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. It is also admitted fact that as per FIR and charge sheet, the deceased was travelling as pillion rider on the motor cycle at the time of accident. 19. The above facts and circumstances would establish that the motor cycle bearing No.AP 05 BW 6532 involved in the accident was registered with Road Transport Authority, Kakinada, and Ex.B-1 insurance policy was issued for the said motor cycle covering the risk of rider of the motor cycle only, but not the pillion rider, and no additional premium was paid covering the risk of the pillion riders travelling on the motor cycle. 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, when there is violation of the terms of the policy, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of 1) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Swaran Singh and others, 2) Manuara Khatun and others Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others, and 3) Anu Bhanvara etc., Vs. Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited directed the insurer to first pay the awarded sum to the claimant therein, and later recover the same from the insured in the same proceedings. 20. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shivaraj Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others, and 3) Anu Bhanvara etc., Vs. Iffco Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited directed the insurer to first pay the awarded sum to the claimant therein, and later recover the same from the insured in the same proceedings. 20. 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 & Ors., Mangla Ram Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rani & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. 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).” 21. 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’ directing the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company to first pay the compensation amount to the claimants and later to recover the same from the owner (R-1) of the motor cycle bearing No. AP 05 BW 6532 in the same proceedings can be applied. 22. In that view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal has to be modified by holding that the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company shall first pay the compensation amount and later can recover the same from the owner (R-1) of the motor cycle in the same proceedings. Accordingly, this point is answered. 23. POINT No.2: The deceased is the father of P.W-1, who is 2nd claimant in the case. The claimant No.1 is wife of the deceased and the claimant No.3 is the daughter of the deceased. Accordingly, this point is answered. 23. POINT No.2: The deceased is the father of P.W-1, who is 2nd claimant in the case. The claimant No.1 is wife of the deceased and the claimant No.3 is the daughter of the deceased. The case of the claimants is that as the deceased was working as Public Health Worker and earning a sum of Rs.25,000/- per month at the time of accident and contributing the same to the family. The claimants in support of their contention, filed Ex.A-5 pay particulars of the deceased for the period from May 2011 to April 2012, which shows that the net salary of the deceased for the month of April, 2012 is Rs.24,760/-. The accident occurred on 13.05.2012. Hence, the earnings of the deceased can be taken at Rs.24,760/-per month. P.W-3 deposed that he is working as Senior Assistant in Peddapuram Municipality and he further deposed that as per their records, the date of birth of deceased is 20.11.1958. Thus, the age of deceased at the time of accident was 53 years. 24. 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, as the deceased got three dependents and arrived the monthly income at Rs.24,760 – 8,253 = Rs.16,507/-per month. The deceased was aged 53 years at the time of accident. Therefore, the Tribunal has applied the multiplier ‘11’ as per the above judgment. The total compensation towards loss of dependency is arrived at Rs.16,507 x 12 x 11 = Rs.21,78,924/-. The Tribunal opined that deceased as pillion rider also contributed negligence for occurring the accident @ 25% and deducted 25% on the quantum of loss of dependency and arrived at Rs.21,78,924 – 5,44,731 = Rs.16,34,193/-and the same was rounded to Rs.16,34,200/-. 25. 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, and the 1st claimant being the wife of deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/-towards consortium, total Rs.70,000/-, and the total compensation entitled by the claimants would be Rs.16,34,200 + 70,000 = Rs.17,04,200/-. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.17,09,200/-. 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, and the 1st claimant being the wife of deceased is entitled to Rs.40,000/-towards consortium, total Rs.70,000/-, and the total compensation entitled by the claimants would be Rs.16,34,200 + 70,000 = Rs.17,04,200/-. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.17,09,200/-. In that view of the matter, the contention of the appellant/Insurance Company that the Tribunal awarded excessive compensation to the claimants, is not tenable and the same is liable to be rejected. 26. The Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition, till the date of realisation. This Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal at 7.5% p.a., from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). Accordingly, this point is answered. 27. 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. 28. In the result, the order passed by the Tribunal is modified partly as follows: a) It is held that the claimants are entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,09,200/-(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs, Nine Thousand, and Two Hundred only), with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition, till the date of actual payment, as awarded by the Tribunal. b) The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company is directed first to deposit the compensation amount of Rs.17,09,200/-(Rupees Seventeen Lakhs, Nine Thousand, and Two Hundred only), along with accrued interest thereon, 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. If the appellant has had already deposited any amount towards the compensation amount due under the decree, the same shall be deducted from the above amount, and the balance amount if any shall be deposited within one month from the date of judgment. c) The order passed by the Tribunal regarding apportionment of compensation amount among the claimants is holds good. There shall be no order as to costs. c) The order passed by the Tribunal regarding apportionment of compensation amount among the claimants is holds good. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.