JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) has been filed by the appellants/claimants being aggrieved by the award dated 18.07.2013 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, FTC, Korba (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 195/2013. 2. Brief facts of the case is that on 20.01.2007 in between 1:30 to 2:00 PM, the husband of the appellant No. 1 was travelling in the Auto driven by respondent No.1 and near the village Lariya Motor stand, Hardi Bazar, Kusmunda Distt. Korba. When the vehicle reached in the village Kusmunda, respondent No. 1 who was driving the vehicle bearing registration No. CG 12 E/ 5349 rashly and negligently on account of which the deceased Manoj who was seated on the back side was hit by the iron pipe and sustained injury and died on the spot. Respondent No.1 left the deceased nearby and ran away. Thereafter the police registered Crime No. 115/07 for the offence under Sections 304-A and 201 IPC against the appellant. 3. Respondent No.1 & 2 remained ex parte before the Tribunal and did not filed their written statement. Respondent No.2/owner of the offending vehicle has stated that the vehicle was a passenger vehicle and it comes under the light motor vehicle and he has admitted that the driver was not holding valid and effective license. He has also admitted that after 20.01.2007, he has never renewed the permit and thus has not been able to prove the validity of the driving license. 4. The Respondent No. 3/ United Insurance Company Ltd. filed its written statement and denied the averments made in the claim application and submitted that the deceased fall down and met to an accident on his own negligence. There is breach of Policy as the Respondent No.1 was not having valid driving license and it is also stated that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation as per terms and conditions of the Policy and sought for dismissal of claim petition. 5. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues and after assessment of evidence and material placed before it decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded Rs. 6,73,500/- as compensation. 6. 5. On the basis of above broad pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues and after assessment of evidence and material placed before it decided the same in favour of the appellants/claimants and awarded Rs. 6,73,500/- as compensation. 6. Counsel for the appellants submits that it is a case where the driver was not holding valid and effective driving license at the time of accident thus there is fundamental breach of policy condition. He submits that the finding of the Tribunal is bad for the reason that it had not properly deducted the personal expenses and as such the amount of compensation should be enhanced. 7. Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants argued that learned tribunal has erred in analyzing the evidence put on records and ought to have seen that the appellant has submitted salary certificate (Ex.P-7) of the deceased in which monthly salary has been shown Rs. 9533/- after deduction. The salary has to be calculated without deduction. Therefore the amount of compensation is in lower side and may be enhanced suitably. He further argued that learned tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of compensation of the amount as the appellant No.1 has given compassionate appointment which is illegal as the law does not permit to deduct 50% because the claimant has been given employment, the compensation has been awarded to the appellants should be enhanced and the compensation awarded under other conventional heads is also on the lower side therefore, he prays that the amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably. In support of his contention, he relied upon the following judgments-National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Shabana Khan and another (MAC No. 322/2015) passed by this court on 21.09.2022, Shamanna and another Vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. And Others { (2018) 9 SCC 650 , United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satindar Kaur {(2021) 11 SCC 650} and Smt. Anjali & Others Vs. Lokendra Rathod & Others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 1012. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant further relied in the matter of Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in (2019) 7 SCC 217 , whereby the Supreme Court has approved the principle of “Pay and Recovery” in such cases. Lokendra Rathod & Others, 2022 Live Law (SC) 1012. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant further relied in the matter of Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Company Limited reported in (2019) 7 SCC 217 , whereby the Supreme Court has approved the principle of “Pay and Recovery” in such cases. More recently again in the case of Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Mummu reported in (2022) 1 SSC 317, in paragraph 17 applying the principle of pay and recovery, the Supreme Court has held as under:- “17. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs.4,70,000 (Rupees four lakhs seventy thousand only) towards total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned between the appellants as ordered by the Tribunal. The entire compensation shall be paid to the appellants by Respondent2 insurance company, and we keep it open to the insurance company to recover the same from Respondent 1 owner of the motorcycle by initiating appropriate proceedings as the motorcycle was driven by the driver who was not possessing valid driving licence on the date of the accident. 9. Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supported the award impugned and submits that looking to the material evidence available on record, findings so recorded by the learned Tribunal does not require any interference with regard to the compensation. 10. As per the pleadings, deceased Manoj Kumar was aged about 27 years and he was working as labour vide (Ex.-P7) and earning Rs. 9533/- per month, therefore appellants/claimants had filed application under Section 166 of the MV Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,20,000/- as total compensation with interest and also pleaded that deceased was working as General labour Category No.3 and earning Rs. 13,000/- per month. 11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and perused the records. 12. The deceased was working as General Labour, learned Tribunal assessed the monthly income of the deceased to Rs. 9533/- (Ex. P/7) and future prospects has not been added and all other heads is also on the lower side which is incorrect. This court will not consider the Holiday wages, Sunday wages and PFABLE ARR. because this income cannot be considered as Regular income, he will get income only whenever he works. 9533/- (Ex. P/7) and future prospects has not been added and all other heads is also on the lower side which is incorrect. This court will not consider the Holiday wages, Sunday wages and PFABLE ARR. because this income cannot be considered as Regular income, he will get income only whenever he works. Hence, by deducting Holiday wages (Rs.301/-),Sunday wages (Rs.602/-) and PFABLE ARR. (Rs.1076/-) from the income of the deceased i.e. Rs. 9533/- assessed by Tribunal, it comes to Rs. 7554/-. 13. That the learned Motor Claim Tribunal has erred in deducting 50% of compensation of the amount as the appellant No.1 has given compassionate appointment which is illegal as the law does not permit to deduct 50% because the claimant has been given employment. Therefore as per findings of the learned Tribunal in 29 of the award is illegal and against the law, the low compensation has been awarded to the appellants and it should be enhanced. 14. At the time of accident driver was not having valid and effective driving license due to which liability is fastened upon the respondent No. 1 and 2. In the matter of Parmindar Singh vs. New India Assurance Company Ltd reported in (2019) 7 SCC 217 , whereby the Supreme Court has approved the principle of “Pay and Recovery” in such cases. More recently again in the case of Kurvan Ansari Alias Kurvan Ali v. Shyam Kishore Mummu reported in (2022) 1 SCC 317 , in paragraph 17 applying the principle of pay and recovery, the Supreme Court has held as under :- “17. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for a sum of Rs. 4,70,000/- (Rupees four lakhs seventy thousand only) towards total compensation with interest @ 6% from the date of claim petition till the date of realisation. The enhanced compensation shall be apportioned between the appellants as ordered by the Tribunal. The entire compensation shall be paid to the appellants by Respondent 2 insurance company, and we keep it open to the insurance company to recover the same from Respondent 1 owner of the motorcycle by initiating appropriate proceedings as the motorcycle was driven by the driver who was not possessing valid driving license on the date of the accident.” 15. whereby the Supreme Court has approved the principle also in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. whereby the Supreme Court has approved the principle also in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Pranay Sethi & other, (2017) 16 SCC 680 ; Sarla Verma and others Vs Delhi Transport Corporation and another (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited Vs. Nanu Ram alias Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 , compensation is computed as below :- Sl.No. Particular Awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income of the deceased Rs. 7554/- 2. Future Prospects @ 50% Rs.3777/- 3. Total Income monthly Rs. 11331/- 4. Personal expenditure (1/3rd) Rs. 3777/- 5. Total yearly income (7554 X 12) = Rs. 90,648/- 6. Multiplier of 17 applied to assess total loss of dependency Rs. 15,41,016/- 10. Loss of consortium Rs. 40,000/- Total Compensation Rs. 15,81,016/- 16. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 6,73,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 15,81,016-(Fifteen Lakh Eighty one thousand and Sixteen Rupees only) Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 6,73,500/- the claimants/appellants are held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 9,07,516/- (Nine Lakh Seven thousand five hundred sixteen) the additional amount shall carry interest @6% per annum from the date of claim application. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent. 17. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from today. Since there are two claimants therefore, the enhanced amount i.e. Rs. 9,07,516/- (Nine Lakh Seven thousand five hundred sixteen) with interest @6% per annum be paid from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal. The Insurance Company would be at liberty to recover the same from the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal shall apportion the award and disburse the same in terms of award. 18. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed.