JUDGMENT : This Appeal , under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is filed by the insurance company assailing the award dated 25.08.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.37 of 2009. 2. Heard arguments of Smt. Medida Manimma, the learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company and Ms. C.Jhansi Rani, the learned counsel for respondents/claimants. 3. The following facts are required to be noticed: A tractor and trailer bearing registration Nos.AP-03-T-3802 and AP-03-T-3803 meant for agricultural operations was carrying coolies in it to attend the agricultural works of groundnut crop which reached Mukkalathur in Chittoor District on 10.10.2007 at 10:30 A.M., but the driver of it failed to take reasonable care and caution and his negligent resulted in accident leading to death of one of the coolies Sri Subramanyam @ Subbaiah. As against the driver of the offending tractor and trailer, Crime No.84 of 2007 was registered by police and a charge sheet was laid before the learned IV Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Chittoor where it was registered as C.C.No.1100 of 2007. The deceased was aged 30 years. His monthly income was found to be Rs.3,000/-. The multiplier ‘17’ was found relevant. Wife, children and parents of the deceased made a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs.5,00,000/-. The owner of the offending vehicle was respondent No.1 and the insurance company which insured the offending vehicle was respondent No.2. After considering the rival contentions, the learned Claims Tribunal granted compensation under the following heads: Loss of dependency Rs. 4,59,000-00 Loss of consortium Rs. 10,000-00 Loss of estate Rs. 10,000-00 Transportation charges Rs. 3,000-00 Funeral expenses Rs. 3,000-00 Total: Rs.4,85,000-00 It passed the award in the following terms: “In the result, the MVOP is partly allowed with proportionate costs awarding total compensation of Rs.4.85,000-00 (Rs. Four Lakhs eighty five thousand only) as against the claim for Rs.5,00,000-00, with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit/realization against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. Four Lakhs eighty five thousand only) as against the claim for Rs.5,00,000-00, with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit/realization against the respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally. The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to deposit the awarded compensation with accrued interest and costs allowed within two months from the date of the Award, failing which the petitioners are entitled to claim interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of expiry of above said period of two months in the following manner: 1st Petitioner/wife : Rs.1,85,000/- + entire interest & costs Minor petitioners 2 & 3 : Rs.1,00,000/- each Petitioner No.4/Mother : Rs. 50,000/- Petitioner No.5/Father : Rs. 50,000/- On such deposit, the first petitioner/wife is permitted to withdraw Rs.85,000/- (Rupees eighty five thousand only) along with entire interest and costs and the balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/- shall be deposited by way of FDR in any Nationalized Bank for a period of 3 years and on maturity entitled to receive the same along with accrued interest. Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh) each of the minor petitioners 2 and 3 shall be deposited by way of FDR in any Nationalized Bank initially for a period of 3 years renewable from time to time till they attain age of majority and on such event they are entitled to receive their respective share of amount with accrued interest. Petitioners 4 and 5 the parents of the deceased are permitted to withdraw their share of Rs.50,000/- each. Advocate fee is fixed at Rs.1000-00 (Rs. One thousand only). Rest of the MVOP claim, is dismissed, but without costs.” 4. Aggrieved of the above award, the insurance company preferred this appeal. 5. The vehement contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company is that Ex.B.1-insurance policy is “liability only”/“Act only policy” and it covers the claims of third parties and not those of the gratuitous passengers and that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and the Claims Tribunal committed grave error in fastening liability on the insurance company. 6. Learned counsel for the insurance company cited the following precedent: 1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. T. Chamanchiamma, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 1912. 2. National Insurance Company Limited v. Saravanan, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 4260 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sri.Srinivasa, 2017:KHC:16440 7. 6. Learned counsel for the insurance company cited the following precedent: 1. Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. T. Chamanchiamma, 2024 SCC OnLine AP 1912. 2. National Insurance Company Limited v. Saravanan, 2023 SCC OnLine Mad 4260 3. National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sri.Srinivasa, 2017:KHC:16440 7. In the rulings first cited above, a learned Judge of this Court was to consider the effect of ‘Act only policy’ as to whether that would cover other than third parties or not. That was a case where one of the inmates of the jeep died in the accident. On facts it was found that no additional premium was paid and therefore such gratuitous passengers’ claims were not covered by the insurance policy and hence insurer could not be fastened with liability. Another question that fell for consideration in the cited ruling was that the insurance company in its written statement/counter did not raise a factual dispute about the nature of the insurance policy. The debate that took place before the Court was whether in such circumstances the argument of the insurance company could be considered. The learned Judge took the view that voluminous evidence was placed on both sides with reference to that aspect of the matter and in such circumstances a Court could not overlook the terms and conditions of the exhibited insurance policy and therefore absence of a contention in the written statement about the nature of the insurance policy was of no consequence. 8. The other rulings cited by the learned counsel for the insurance company did not require any consideration in view of the ruling of this Court about which this Court has adverted to till now. 9. The operative portion of the award has been already extracted. That indicated that the owner and insurance company were held jointly and severally liable. Though Ex.B.1-insurance policy is only Act only policy since there was no such contention before the Claims Tribunal, there was no finding recorded in that regard by the Claims Tribunal. What was contended before the Claims Tribunal was only about driver of the offending vehicle was ineligible to drive because he did not possess valid and effective driving licence. That was well considered by the Claims Tribunal and such objection was overruled. 10. What was contended before the Claims Tribunal was only about driver of the offending vehicle was ineligible to drive because he did not possess valid and effective driving licence. That was well considered by the Claims Tribunal and such objection was overruled. 10. In the present appeal filed by the insurance company the terms and conditions of Ex.B.1-insurance policy are not in dispute and both sides agreed that it is Act only insurance policy. When the insured has not insured the vehicle for inmates of the vehicle but obtained a policy of insurance only to the risks of third parties, there can be no liability for the insurance company to pay the compensation. The entire compensation must be shouldered by the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, the impugned award fastening liability on the insurance company in its operative portion shall deserve modification. 11. Learned counsel for respondents/claimants urged this Court that the doctrine of ‘pay and recover’ even in such cases is the accepted practice and cited Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh , [ (2017) 4 SCC 796 ] . That is a case where in a Tata Sumo a gratuitous passenger was travelling and the vehicle was involved in an accident leading to the death of its inmates. The insurance policy obtained by the owner was only to cover the risks of third parties but not that of the inmates of Tata Sumo vehicle. After analysis of the facts and the precedent, their Lordships held that in such cases the claimants were entitled for an order against the insured to pay the awarded amount to the claimants and then recover such amount from the insured without necessity of a separate suit. The ratio squarely governs the field. Therefore, it is a deserving case where invocation of doctrine of ‘pay and recover’ would meet the ends of justice. To that extent the impugned award shall be ordered to be modified. 12. In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the award dated 25.08.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor in M.V.O.P.No.37 of 2009 fixing liability on respondent No.2 before the Claims Tribunal is modified while the liability of the owner of the vehicle/respondent No.6 before this Court is upheld. 12. In the result, this Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the award dated 25.08.2012 of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Chittoor in M.V.O.P.No.37 of 2009 fixing liability on respondent No.2 before the Claims Tribunal is modified while the liability of the owner of the vehicle/respondent No.6 before this Court is upheld. The second respondent-Insurance Company before the Claims Tribunal/appellant herein is directed to pay the compensation amount of Rs.4,85,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation within one month from the date of this judgment before the Claims Tribunal. The appellant herein-Insurance Company shall pay the amount to respondent Nos.1 to 5/claimants in the first instance and later recover the same from the sixth respondent herein by filing an execution petition without there being any need for filing any suit. On such a deposit, the claimants are entitled to withdraw the same as per their entitlement mentioned in the award of the Claims Tribunal along with costs and accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.