JUDGMENT : These appeals are directed against the order of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge at Rayachoty (hereinafter called as ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.Nos.102 of 2011 and 23 of 2012 dated 23.07.2013. 2. Since these appeals arise out of same accident and as the material facts are common, the same are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Both the M.A.C.M.As. are preferred by the insurer of the Tractor-cum-Trailer bearing No.AP 04 W 4897 and AP 04 W 4898 (hereinafter referred to as “crime vehicle”). The respondent Nos.1 to 3 in M.A.C.M.A.No.170 of 2025 are the children of one Pagadala Nagamma (hereinafter called as “deceased”). The respondent Nos.1 and 2 in M.A.C.M.A.No.179 of 2015 are the injured/claimant and owner of the crime vehicle respectively. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 5. The case of the claimants, in the petitions before the Tribunal in both M.V.O.Ps. is that: i). On 16.05.2011, while the deceased, injured/claimant along with others proceeding on the crime vehicle with load of date leaves from Koriakunta to Kalakada, when they reached near Devapatla Mitta at Kasthuri Bai School, the driver of the said vehicle drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control over the same, resulted the vehicle turned turtle, the deceased died on the spot and injured sustained severe bleeding injuries. ii). They claimed compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- respectively against the owner and insurer of the crime vehicle. 6. The respondent No.1/insured filed counter in both the matters before the Tribunal denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the vehicle was validly insured with the 2 nd respondent and the policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle is in force by the date of incident; that the accident occurred was not due to negligence on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle. 7. 7. The respondent No.2/insurer filed written statement in both the matters before the Tribunal denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the driver of the crime vehicle is not having valid driving license to drive the same by the date of incident, thereby, the owner of the vehicle violated the terms and conditions of the policy; that the seating capacity of tractor is one and the trailer has to be used for agricultural purpose only; that the compensation claimed by the claimants is excessive, thereby, prayed to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 8. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material in M.V.O.P.No.102 of 2011: “1. Whether the deceased Pagadala Nagamma died in road accident on 16.05.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 04 W 4897 and AP04 W 4898 of 1 st respondent by its driver as pleaded? 2. Whether the 1st respondent violated insurance policy conditions as pleaded by 2 nd respondent? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? and 4. To what relief?” 9. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material in M.V.O.P.No.23 of 2012: “1. Whether the petitioner met with road accident and sustained injuries on 16.05.2011 due to rash and negligent driving of tractor and trailer bearing No.AP 04 W 4897 and AP04 W 4898 of 1 st respondent by its driver as pleaded? 2. Whether the 1st respondent violated insurance policy conditions as pleaded by 2 nd respondent? 3. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? and 4. To what relief?” 10. During enquiry, in both the matters, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2/insurer, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. 11. and 4. To what relief?” 10. During enquiry, in both the matters, on behalf of the claimants, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.4 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.2/insurer, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked. 11. On the material, the Tribunal, having concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.3,09.000/- and Rs.26,000/- respectively, with interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 and 2, however, 2 nd respondent is at liberty to recover the same from the 1 st respondent in the absence of valid driving license to the driver to drive the crime vehicle by the date of incident as well the injured and deceased are not allowed to travel in the crime vehicle as passengers. 12. It is against the said orders; these appeals are preferred by the insurer of the crime vehicle. 13. Heard Smt. P. Satya Manjula, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri V. Nitesh, learned counsel for the respondents/claimants in both the appeals. 14. Now, the point that arises for determination is whether the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside, if so, to what extent? 15. POINT: It is not in dispute about the injuries sustained by the claimant as well death of the deceased in the accident, involvement of the crime vehicle, rash and negligent driving of the same by its driver, the Ex.B.1 policy issued in respect of the crime vehicle is in force by the date of incident. It is also a fact that the claimants as well owner of the crime vehicle did not prefer any appeal against the findings of the Tribunal. 16. The only contention raised by the insurer is that when the injured and deceased travelling in the crime vehicle as unauthorized passengers, the Tribunal erred in ordering pay and recovery against the appellant and the same is liable to be set aside. 17. It is an undisputed fact in view of the testimony of R.W.2 coupled with Exs.B.2 and B.3 the driver of the crime vehicle is not possessing license to drive the transport vehicle. 17. It is an undisputed fact in view of the testimony of R.W.2 coupled with Exs.B.2 and B.3 the driver of the crime vehicle is not possessing license to drive the transport vehicle. By the time of incident, the vehicle was using transporting the date leaves, thereby, violated the terms of policy. It is also not in dispute that the injured and deceased, who were engaged in transporting the date leaves, travelling in the crime vehicle by the time of incident. The premium was collected under basic third party damages and four employees. 18. Now, to decide the above point, it is relevant to refer the certain pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shamanna v. Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, [2018 LawSuit(SC) 722], 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.” 19. It is also required to refer another Three Judge Bench pronouncement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Singh Ram v. Nirmala , AIR 2018 SC 1290 , 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 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. There shall be no order as to costs.” 20. 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.” 20. Furthermore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh , [ (2017) 4 SCC 796 ] , 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) 21. Having regard to the above categorical 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 vehicle is in force by the time of incident, a direction can be issued against the insurer of the crime vehicle to pay the awarded sum to the claimants at first instance and then recover the same from the insured/owner/1st respondent, because as stated supra the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime vehicle by its driver, resulted the incident. 22. Now, coming to the just compensation, the Tribunal by considering the material on record rightly calculated and awarded compensation entitled by the claimants, thereby, which does not require any interference. 23. 22. Now, coming to the just compensation, the Tribunal by considering the material on record rightly calculated and awarded compensation entitled by the claimants, thereby, which does not require any interference. 23. Having regard to the above discussion, there are no valid reasons warrant interference of this Court to the findings recorded by the Tribunal, as such, the appeals preferred by the insurer is liable for dismissal. 24. In the result, both the M.A.C.M.A.Nos.170 and 179 of 2025 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. Miscellaneous petitions pending if any, stand closed.