JUDGMENT : V. SRINIVAS, J. 1. 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.556 of 2017 dated 22.05.2023. 2. The appellant is the insurer of the motorcycle bearing No. AP 16 CX 2389 (hereinafter referred to as “crime motorcycle”). The respondent No.1 herein is the claimant before the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the driver and owner of the crime motorcycle respectively. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant, in the petition before the Tribunal is that: i) On 15.03.2017 at about 08.00 p.m., while the claimant returning to his home, when he reached in front of shop of one Polagani Nageswara Rao, Mandavalli, Lingala Village, Mandavalli Mandal, the crime motorcycle driven by the 1 st respondent in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant, resulted he sustained multiple grievous and bleeding injuries. Then he was shifted to Government Hospital at Gudivada and in-turn M.J. Naidu Hospital at Vijayawada for better treatment. ii) He claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the driver, owner and insurer of the crime motorcycle. 5. The respondent No.3/insurer filed written statement denying the averments in the petition and pleaded that the 1st respondent rider of the crime motorcycle is not having valid driving license to ride the same, thereby, violated the terms and conditions of the policy; that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. that the compensation claimed by the claimant is excessive, thereby, prays to dismiss the petition against this respondent. 6. The Tribunal settled the following issues for enquiry basing on the material: “1. Whether the petitioner Ede Sriramulu sustained injuries in the motor vehicle accident dated 15.03.2017 at about 08.00 p.m., in front of Polagani Nageswara Rao shop at Mandavalli, Lingala Village, Mandavalli Mandal, Krishna District, due to rash and negligent driving of crime vehicle i.e., motorcycle bearing No.AP 16 CX 2389 by its driver/1st respondent? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? and 3. To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.4 were exhibited. 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? and 3. To what relief?” 7. During enquiry, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 and 2 were examined, Exs.A.1 to A.4 were exhibited. On behalf of the respondent No.3, R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1, B.2 and X.2 were marked. 8. On the material, the Tribunal, having come to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the crime motorcycle by the 1st respondent, held that the claimants are entitled for the compensation of Rs.12,28,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization against the respondent Nos.1 to 3, for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. 9. It is against the said award; the present appeal was preferred by the appellant/insurer. 10. Heard Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer and Sri Eluru Sesha Mahesh Babu, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant. 11. Sri Naresh Byrapaneni, learned counsel for the appellant/insurer vehemently contended that the Tribunal erred in fixing the liability against the appellant/insurer in the absence of driving license to the 1st respondent in riding the crime motorcycle; that the Tribunal wrongly interpreting that one having L.M.V. license is entitled to drive vehicle with unladen weight below 7500 kgs., which requires interference of this Court; that the testimony of R.W.2 coupled with Ex.B.1 demonstrates that the 1 st respondent is not having driving license to ride the crime motorcycle, thereby, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside. In support of the above contention, he relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sardari v. Sushil Kumar , 2008 Law Suit (SC) 206 wherein it was held that “The owner of the vehicle has a statutory obligation to see that the driver of the vehicle whom he authorized to drive the same hold a valid licenses”. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal after elaborate consideration of the matter rightly fastened the liability on the appellant/insurer to pay the compensation to the claimant, since the 1st respondent is authorized to drive the crime motorcycle which unladen weight is below 7500 kgs. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the claimant submits that the Tribunal after elaborate consideration of the matter rightly fastened the liability on the appellant/insurer to pay the compensation to the claimant, since the 1st respondent is authorized to drive the crime motorcycle which unladen weight is below 7500 kgs. and there are no valid grounds urged by the appellant to meddle with the well-articulated order passed by the Tribunal, thereby, the present appeal has no merits and liable for dismissal. 13. Now, the short point that arises for determination is “whether the insurer is liable to pay the compensation amount to the claimant/third party in the absence of specific driving license to the 1st respondent to ride the crime motorcycle by the date of incident ?” 14. POINT : It is not in dispute about the death of the deceased in the incident, involvement of crime motorcycle, rash and negligent driving of the same by the 1 st respondent in causing the incident, the crime vehicle was validly insured with the 3rd respondent/insurer by the time of accident under Ex.B.2. It is also a fact that no appeal was preferred by the claimant, driver and insurer of the crime motorcycle against the findings of the Tribunal. 15. In view of the above contentions, firstly, it is apposite to refer the certain provisions made in Motor Vehicle Act (hereinafter referred to as “M.V. Act”) as per Section 2(21) of M.V. A ct “light motor vehicle” means a transport vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed 7,500 kilograms. 16. As per Section 2(27) of M.V. Act “ motor cycle means” a two-wheeled motor vehicle, inclusive of any detachable side-car having an extra wheel, attached to the motor vehicle. 17. As per Section 3 of M.V. Act; Necessity for driving license . — (1) No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving license issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle [other than [a motor cab or motor cycle] hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section (2) of section 75] unless his driving license specifically entitles him so to do. 18. 18. As per Section 10(2) of the M.V. Act form of driving license needs by the holder to drive the different class of vehicles , which reads as follows: 10. Form and contents of licenses to drive: (1) Every learner’s license and driving license, except a driving license issued under section 18, shall be in such form and shall contain such information as may be prescribed by the Central Government. (2) A learner’s license or, as the case may be, driving license shall also be expressed as entitling the holder to drive a motor vehicle of one or more of the following classes, namely:— (a) motor cycle without gear; (b) motor cycle with gear; (c) invalid carriage; (d) light motor vehicle; (e) transport vehicle; (i) road-roller; (j) motor vehicle of a specified description. 19. In the present case on hand, the testimony of R.W.2, who is Senior Assistant, R.T.O. at Gudivada, is very much clear that the person possessing LMV Transport or non- transport license is not entitled to drive the motorcycle with gear. A person is entitled to drive a motorcycle if he possesses motorcycle with gear or without gear license. By 15.03.2017, the 1 st respondent does not possess the license to drive the motorcycle and he obtained endorsement to drive the vehicle with gear from 01.07.2017 onwards, which is subsequent to the accident. Thereby, this Court conceded with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer that by the date of incident, the 1st respondent is not having driving license to ride the crime motorcycle. But, the Tribunal ignoring the said fact made an interpretation that the person having LMV license is entitled to drive the motorcycle, which is nothing but perverse. It is an admitted fact that the mechanism of vehicles in both classes is completely different, the person must have efficiency to operate the same and requires particular authorization as per the rules made in the M.V. Act specified supra. Thereby, this Court has no hesitation to say that by the date of incident, the 1 st respondent is not having driving license to ride the crime motorcycle, as such, violated the terms and conditions of the Ex.B.2 policy by the 2 nd respondent/owner. 20. Thereby, this Court has no hesitation to say that by the date of incident, the 1 st respondent is not having driving license to ride the crime motorcycle, as such, violated the terms and conditions of the Ex.B.2 policy by the 2 nd respondent/owner. 20. 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 Law Suit (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.” 21. In Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited v. Gujjala Ramulamma , MANU/AP/0025/2015, decided on 19.01.2015 , this Court categorically observed at paragraph No.10 that: “10. In the light of above decision, though driver possessed license for a different vehicle, the Insurance company could not establish that was the fundamental cause for accident and further the owner deliberately violated the terms of the policy. Hence, it is a fit case to direct the Insurance Company to pay compensation at first and later recover from the insured.” 22. 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 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.” 23. 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) 24. 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.2 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 claimant at first instance and then recover the same from the insured/owner/2 nd respondent, because as stated supra the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the crime motorcycle by the 1st respondent, resulted the incident. 25. 25. It is needless to say that the Tribunal by following the renowned pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar , 2011 ACJ 1 , National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi , 2017 (6) ALT 60 (SC) , Rajesh v. Rajbir Singh , 2013 ACJ 1403 (SC) , Syed Sadiq v. United India Insurance Company Limited , 2014 ACJ 627 and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Association of Victims of Uphaar Tragedy , 2012 ACJ 48 SCJ calculated the compensation entitled by the claimant and awarded just compensation, thereby, this Court has no reason to interfere with the said calculations and conclusion arrived by the Tribunal. 26. 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. 27. In the result, M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part by modifying the order to the Tribunal to the extent that the appellant/respondent No.3/insurer is directed to pay the awarded sum to the claimant at first instance and then recover the same from the owner/2 nd respondent 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.