JUDGMENT : V Srinivas, J. This appeal is directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.499 of 2010 dated 19.04.2017. 2. The appellants, who are wife and children of one Kanamala Satyanandam (hereinafter called as “the deceased”), are the claimants before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are the rider-cum-owner and insurer of the Bajaj Boxer Motorcycle bearing No.AP 16AH 8539 (hereinafter referred to as “crime motorcycle”) respectively. 3. The case of the claimants, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i). On 16.05.2008 at about 05.30 p.m., when the deceased reached Rangannagari street on his bicycle and standing on the left side road margin, the 1st respondent rider of the crime motorcycle, driven the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, dashed against the deceased, resulted the deceased sustained multiple injuries all over the body. While undergoing treatment, the deceased was succumbed to injuries on 22.05.2008. ii). Being dependents, they claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- against the rider-cum-owner and insurer of the crime motorcycle. 4. The respondent No.1/rider-cum-owner filed counter denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the accident occurred was only due to the deceased, but not 1 st respondent; that the policy issued in respect of the crime motorcycle is in force by the time of incident, thereby, 2 nd respondent is only liable to pay compensation to the claimants, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 5. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the claimants ought to have proved that there are no violations of terms and conditions of the policy; that there is no negligence on the part of the 1 st respondent in causing the incident, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1.Whether the accident occurred due to the Bajaj Boxer motorcycle bearing No.AP 16 AH 8539 driven by its driver/1 st respondent? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? and 3.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.6 were exhibited. 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled for the compensation as prayed for? If so, to what amount and against which of the respondents? and 3.To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.6 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondents, R.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.4 and X.1 were marked. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the crime motorcycle by the 1 st respondent, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.5,61,800/-, with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent No.1 only, for the death of the deceased in the accident. The claim against respondent Nos.2 is dismissed due to violation of terms and conditions of Ex.B.1 policy in the absence of driving license to the 1 st respondent by the date of incident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellants/claimants. 10. Heard Sri S.Syam Sunder Rao, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Smt.V.Durga, learned counsel for the 2 nd respondent/insurer 11. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants/claimants is that even the 1 st respondent is not having driving license to ride the crime motorcycle, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants/3 rd parties at first instance then recover the same from the insured, when Ex.B.1 policy is in force by the time of incident. In support of the above contention, he relied upon the pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, [2018 LawSuit(SC) 722], Singh Ram v. Nirmala , [ AIR 2018 SC 1290 ] and Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh , [ (2017) 4 SCC 796 ] 12. Now, the short point that arises for determination is “whether the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants/3 rd parties in the absence of driving license to the 1st respondent/rider of the crime motorcycle by the date of incident?” 13. Now, the short point that arises for determination is “whether the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimants/3 rd parties in the absence of driving license to the 1st respondent/rider of the crime motorcycle by the date of incident?” 13. POINT it is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the incident, involvement of crime motorcycle, rash and negligent riding of the crime motorcycle by the 1 st respondent in causing the incident, the crime vehicle was validly insured with the 2 nd respondent/insurer by the time of accident under Ex.B.1. It is also a fact that no appeal was preferred by the insurer and owner of the crime motorcycle against the findings of the Tribunal. 14. In view of the testimony of R.W.2, it was categorically proved before the Tribunal that the 1 st respondent was imposed penalty for not having license, he paid the same and got released the vehicle from the police. The same was not denied by the 1 st respondent by filing any appeal. Thereby, in vivid terms proved before the Tribunal that the 1st respondent, who is rider-cum-owner of the crime motorcycle, is not having driving license to ride the same by the time of incident. Thereby, the insured violated the terms and conditions of Ex.B.1 policy. 15. Now, to decide the above point, It is required to refer a Three Judge Bench pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Ram case ( referred to supra ), wherein it was categorically held at paragraph Nos.8 and 9 that: “8. In the present case it is necessary to note, as observed by the Tribunal, that the owner did not depose in evidence and stayed away from the witness box. He produced a license which was found to be fake. Another license which he sought to produce had already expired before the accident and was not renewed within the prescribed period. It was renewed well after two years had expired. The appellant as owner had evidently failed to take reasonable care (proposition (vii) of Swaran Singh) ( AIR 2004 SC 1531 ) since he could not have been unmindful of facts which were within his knowledge. 9. In the circumstances, the direction by the Tribunal, confirmed by the High Court, to pay and recover cannot be faulted. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. 9. In the circumstances, the direction by the Tribunal, confirmed by the High Court, to pay and recover cannot be faulted. The appeal is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.” 16. It is also relevant to refer another pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shamanna case ( referred to supra ), wherein it was held that “where the driver did not possess the valid driving license and there are breach of policy conditions, “pay and recover” can be ordered in case of third party risks….. While so, in our view, the High Court ought not to have interfered with the award passed by the Tribunal directing the first respondent to pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle.” 17. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun case ( referred to supra ), by referring and relying on its earlier pronouncement in National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P.Paul , [ (2013) 2 SCC 41 ], categorically observed at paragraph Nos.15 and 21 that: “15…..This Court keeping in view the benevolent object of the Act and other relevant factors arising in the case, issued the directions against the Insurance Company to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by applying the principle of “pay and recover. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the direction to United India Insurance Company (Respondent No. 3) - they 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 Co. Ltd. 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 (Tata Sumo) Respondent No.1 in execution proceedings arising in this very case as per the law laid down in Para 26 of Saju P. Paul’s case quoted supra.” (emphasis supplied) 18. Ltd. 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 (Tata Sumo) Respondent No.1 in execution proceedings arising in this very case as per the law laid down in Para 26 of Saju P. Paul’s case quoted supra.” (emphasis supplied) 18. Having regard to the above renowned precedents, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, since it is benevolent legislation and Ex.B.1 policy issued in respect of the crime motorcycle is in force by the time of incident, a direction can be issued against the insurer of the crime motorcycle to pay the awarded sum to the claimants at first instance and then recover the same from the insured/owner/1 st respondent, because as stated supra the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime motorcycle by its rider/1st respondent, resulted death of the deceased. 19. Now, coming to the just compensation, the Tribunal, in the absence of substantial material on record regarding actual income of the deceased, rightly taken the notional monthly income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- and calculated the compensation entitled by the claimants by adding future prospects, deducting personal and living expenses and applying suitable multiplier to the age of the deceased. The Tribunal also awarded consortium and funeral expenses to the claimants. Thereby, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, on various heads after considering the material on record, requires no interference. 20. In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the Tribunal warrants interference only regarding liability to pay the compensation by the insurer at first instance and then recover the same from the owner of crime motorcycle. Thus, this point is answered accordingly. 21. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by modifying the order to the Tribunal to the extent that the respondent No.2/insurer is directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimants at first instance and then recover the same from the 1st respondent/owner by filing execution petition. The rest of the order passed by the Tribunal shall remain intact. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.