JUDGMENT : G.M.MOHIUDDIN, J. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by thelearned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge at Karimnagar (hereinafter "Tribunal" for brevity) in M.V.O.P.No.703 of 2012 by order and decree dated 19.12.2017, the appellants/petitioners have filed the present appeal seekingenhancement of compensation. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants have filed the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short, ‘the Act’) before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- from the respondents for the death of the deceased by name A.Lachaiah @ Devadas. Appellant No.1 is the wife and appellantNo.2 is the daughter of the deceased. On 31.10.2009, the deceased went to Vengalapet Village to attend the 21 st day function of his relatives and after the said function while he was returning to Nancherla Village on his cycle; and when he reached at the outskirts of Vengalapet at 7:30 ?.?., R&B road culvert, respondent No.1 drove his Hero Honda Splendor motorcycle bearing No.AP-36-L-8462 (hereinafter ‘crime vehicle' for brevity) in a rash and negligent manner with high speed dashed against the cycle of the deceased; as a result, the deceased fell down on the road and sustained grievous injuries on head and face and died on the spot. After considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition awarding compensation of Rs.4,19,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of realization, holding the respondent Nos.1 and 2 are liable for the same and respondent No.3-Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, the appellants/petitioners have filed the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 3. Heard Sri A.Mahboob Hussain, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri V.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company. There is no representation on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the record. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants is that though the appellants proved their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Exs.X-1 and X-2, the Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously awarded meager amount. Perused the record. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for appellants is that though the appellants proved their case by adducing cogent evidence apart from relying on the documents under Exs.A-1 to A-5 and Exs.X-1 and X-2, the Tribunal without considering the same has erroneously awarded meager amount. It was further contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the income of the deceased realistically and on a higher side and ought to have awarded just and reasonable compensation along with future prospects considering the age of the deceased and also contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered the principle of 'Pay and Recover' and prayed to allow the appeal by granting just and reasonable compensation. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company has contended that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased, and awarded just and reasonable compensation and rightly exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability to pay compensation. Therefore, in the impugned order and decree, interference of this Court is unwarranted. 6. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the impugned order and decree passed by the Tribunal calls for interference by this Court? If so, whether the appellants/claimants are entitled for any enhancement of compensation? 7. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.3 has not preferred any appeal challenging the impugned order. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship between the appellants and the deceased. There is also no dispute with regard to the occurrence and the manner of accident. The Tribunal by relying on the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 coupled with the documentary evidence under Ex.A1-FIR and Ex.A2- inquest report has arrived at a conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle. 8. The first and foremost contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that though the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as a Tailor, the Tribunal has considered the salary of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- per month and awarded very meager amount towards compensation. 9. It is an admitted fact that the appellants have not placed any evidence on record to establish that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as Tailor. Further, P.W.1 herself pleaded in her pleadings as well as deposed in her cross-examination that the deceased was earning Rs.3,500/- only. 9. It is an admitted fact that the appellants have not placed any evidence on record to establish that the deceased was earning Rs.5,000/- per month as Tailor. Further, P.W.1 herself pleaded in her pleadings as well as deposed in her cross-examination that the deceased was earning Rs.3,500/- only. In the absence of any salary certificate or any other proof, there is no material to establish that the deceased was working as a Tailor and used to earn Rs.5,000/- per month. In the absence of any definite proof of income, the Tribunal has fixed the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.3,000/- on par with the average income which a coolie would earn per month. 10. Further, learned counsel for respondent No.3-Insurance Company vehemently argued that the Tribunal has rightly assessed the income of the deceased after considering the entire evidence adduced by the appellants. It was further argued that the Tribunal after considering the evidence of R.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.B1 to B5 has rightly exonerated respondent No.3 from its liability to pay compensation holding that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid and subsisting driving license at the time of accident and the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. A perusal of the impugned order discloses that the Tribunal has clearly fallen into an error in law in treating a claim petition preferred under Section 163-A of the Act, as if it were one under Section 166 of the Act. The legislative intent underlying Section 163-A of the Act is to provide for a structured formula compensation on the basis of no-fault liability, dispensing with the necessity of proving negligence on the part of the driver or owner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United India Insurance Company Limited, (2004) 5 SCC 385 has authoritatively held that a claim under Section 163-A of the Act is a final remedy and not an interim one and that it operates in a field distinct from a claim under Section 166 of the Act. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal , (2007) 5 SCC 428 , it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that negligence is wholly irrelevant in a claim under Section 163-A of the Act. In Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Meena Variyal , (2007) 5 SCC 428 , it was observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that negligence is wholly irrelevant in a claim under Section 163-A of the Act. By embarking upon an enquiry into negligence and by recording findings thereon, the Tribunal acted beyond the scope of Section 163-A of the Act and thereby misdirected itself in law. The order, therefore, suffers from a manifest illegality in treating a no-fault claim as one founded on fault liability. 12. Insofar as the quantum of compensation is concerned, according to the appellants, the deceased was aged 33 years (as per Exs.A1 to A3) and was engaged in Tailoring work and used to earn Rs.3,500/- per month. However, since the appellants failed to produce any material to show that the deceased was earning Rs.3,500/- per month, the Tribunal had taken the income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, which is not in accordance with Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, as the petition having been filed under Section 163-A of the Act, the income of the deceased can be taken at Rs.40,000/- per annum. Since the claim petition is filed under Section 163-A of the Act, no future prospects can be granted. Recently Division Bench of Hon'ble Sikkim High Court in case of The Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited v. Dilu Rai and others , (M.A.C.App.No.10 of 2018, dated 04.04.2022) , held as follows: "It needs no reiteration that the Supreme Court has clearly spelt out as evident from the decisions cited supra that compensation to be computed under Section 163 of the M.V. Act is on the structured formula as it is based on no fault liability. Once a person invokes the provisions of Section 163A, the question of inclusion of pecuniary compensation for non-tangibles and future prospects does not arise. 20……… under Section 163A future prospects or any other additional non-pecuniary heads find no place and compensation in a Claim Petition under Section 163A of the M.V. Act is to be strictly computed on the structured formula provided in the Second Schedule to the Act." 13. Therefore, considering the above decision and in the factual matrix in the present case, the annual income of the deceased is taken as Rs.40,000/-. Therefore, considering the above decision and in the factual matrix in the present case, the annual income of the deceased is taken as Rs.40,000/-. The deceased was having two dependants, therefore, as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarala Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , (2009) 6 SCC 121 1/3rd has to be deducted towards personal expenses of the deceased. After deducting 1/3 rd amount towards his personal and living expenses, the contribution of the deceased to the family would be Rs.26,667/- per annum (Rs.40,000/- – Rs.13,333/-). As per Exs.A1 to A3, the age of the deceased is 33 years as on the date of accident. Since the age of the deceased was above 30 years and below 35 years at the time of the accident, the appropriate multiplier is 17' as per the second schedule. Adopting multiplier 17', the total loss of dependency would be Rs.26,667/- x 17 = Rs.4,53,339/-. Thus, the loss of dependency on account of the demise of deceased is Rs.4,53,339/-. 14. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/-towards funeral expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs.10,000/- towards consortium and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, as per the principle laid down in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi and others , (2017) 16 SCC 680 . It is a well settled principle that in a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Act, the compensation payable is to be determined strictly in accordance with the structured formula provided under the Second Schedule of the Act. Therefore, the compensation under conventional heads, such as, loss of consortium, funeral expenses, and loss of estate must also be awarded strictly in terms of the limits prescribed in the Second Schedule, and not in accordance with Section 166 of the Act. Thus, considering the Second Schedule of the Act, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Further appellant No.1 i.e., wife of the deceased is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards spousal consortium. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled for Rs.4,62,839/- i.e., (Rs.4,53,339/- + Rs.2,000/- + Rs.2,500/- + Rs.5,000/-). 15. Thus, considering the Second Schedule of the Act, the claimants are also entitled to Rs.2,000/- towards funeral expenses and Rs.2,500/- towards loss of estate. Further appellant No.1 i.e., wife of the deceased is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards spousal consortium. Thus, in all, the appellants are entitled for Rs.4,62,839/- i.e., (Rs.4,53,339/- + Rs.2,000/- + Rs.2,500/- + Rs.5,000/-). 15. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal after considering the fact that respondent No.1 i.e., driver of the crime vehicle was not holding a valid and subsisting driving license as on the date of accident, came to a conclusion that respondent No.3-Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation and exonerated from its held liability to pay compensation and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are held liable jointly and severally to satisfy the compensation amount awarded. 16. It is well established law that even if the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding a valid driving license at the time of accident, in such scenario also respondent No.3-Insurance Company cannot shun its liability to pay compensation, claiming that at the relevant point of time, the vehicle was driven by a person having no valid driving license. The Insurance Company can be made liable initially to pay the amount that is awarded and later, the same can be recovered from the owner and the driver of the crime vehicle, who have been held liable for the compensation. 17. It is an admitted fact that in the present case, respondent No.3- Insurance Company has issued a policy which was valid as on the date of accident and when a valid insurance policy has been issued in respect of a vehicle as evidenced by the certificate of insurance, the burden is on the insurer to pay to the third parties even in the absence of a valid driving license being possessed by the driver of the insured vehicle, subject to however, to the condition that the amount so paid by the insurer to the third parties can be recovered from the person liable, as per the policy conditions. The insurer and the insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. The insurer and the insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on account of the vehicle being driven without a valid Driving License. 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hind Samachar Ltd. (Delhi Unit) v. National Insurance Company Limited and others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2185 held that “ 16. As has been noticed in Geeta Devi (supra) there is no pleading or substantiation of due diligence having not been employed at the time of entrustment. R1W1 was the Advertising In-charge of the appellant who produced the licence before the Court as Exhibit R1W1/1. The certificate issued by the RTO Gurdaspur was also marked as R1 which we referred to from the additional documents. In cross examination, there was only a bland suggestion made to the witness that the Directors of R2 knew that R1 possessed only a fake driving licence. There were no questions put to the witness, who was examined on behalf of the owner, as to the actual entrustment of the vehicle or whether R1 was employed regularly or temporarily and when such employment commenced, which are crucial insofar as proving or disproving due diligence by the owner at the time of engagement of the driver and the entrustment of the vehicle. As has been rightly held by the precedents above noticed, the owner of a vehicle employing a driver can only look at the licence produced by the person seeking employment and is not expected to verify from the licence issuing authority whether the licence is fake or not." (emphasis supplied) In this regard, this Court is of the considered opinion that the principle of 'Pay and Recover' will apply to the facts of the present case and the Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation awarded and take steps to recover the same from respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e., driver and owner of the crime vehicle. 19. 19. It is to be seen that out of the initially awarded compensation of Rs.4,19,000/-, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,69,000/- to appellant No.1, who is wife of the deceased and Rs.1,50,000/- to appellant No.2, who is the daughter of the deceased. The Tribunal further directed that out of the awarded sum, appellant No.1 was permitted to withdraw Rs.1,69,000/-. The balance of Rs.1,00,000/- was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any nationalized Bank for a period of one year and appellant No.2 was permitted to withdraw entire share amount by taking steps under law for major declaration. It is pertinent to note that the time frame of one year fixed by the Tribunal with regard to the deposit of part of compensation amount in any nationalized bank has expired. Further, appellant No.2 has already attained the age of majority. 20. In view of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is required to be modified to the extent of above observations. 21. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in part by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.4,19,000/- to Rs.4,62,839/-, which shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the claim application till the date of realization. The respondent No.3 being insurer of the crime vehicle shall deposit the compensation amount within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment and then take steps to recover the same jointly and severally from respondent Nos.1 and 2 in accordance with law. On such deposit, the appellant No.1 is awarded an amount of Rs.2,82,839/- and appellant No.2 is awarded an amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. The appellants are entitled to withdraw the entire amount awarded to them without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.