JUDGMENT : V.SUJATHA, J. The United India Insurance Company Limited filed the present appeal against the order and decree dated 18.01.2019 passed in O.P.No.238 of 2016 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge’s Court, Anantapuramu, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.10,80,342/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Eighty Thousand Three Hundred and Forty Two only), as against the claim of Rs.20,50,000/-, on account of the death of the deceased M. Krishnaiah in a motor accident that occurred on 16.05.2016. 02. Appellant is the insurer. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein are the claimants/petitioners. Respondent No.4 herein is the owner and respondent No.5 is the driver of the offending vehicle. 03. For the purpose of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. 04. The case of the petitioner/claimant, in brief, is as follows: a) On 16.05.2016 at about 3.00 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding in an auto to go to Anantapuramu on his personal work and when the auto reached near TV tower, a lorry bearing registration No.AP02-TC-1215, which was coming from the opposite direction, was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against the auto. As a result, the deceased and other inmates of the auto sustained injuries. The deceased sustained grievous injuries all over his body in the accident. Immediately he was shifted to Government Hospital, Anantapuramu for treatment. Later, on the advice of doctors, the deceased was shifted to Sreenivasa Hospital, Anantapuramu, where he succumbed to the injuries. A case was registered in Cr.No.22/2016 for the offences under Sections 337, 338 and 304(A) IPC by Anantapuramu Traffic Police Station against the driver of the offending vehicle. b) The petitioners contended that the deceased was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was an expert agriculturist and he was technically cultivating the lands and earning Rs.3,00,000/- per year. The deceased was also attending the agriculture work of other farmers by implementing his best thoughts to cultivate commercial crops from time to time. The petitioners were completely and solely depending on the income of the deceased and due to his sudden demise, the petitioners have lost their sole bread winner and they were facing financial difficulties. 05. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 3, owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte. 06. The petitioners were completely and solely depending on the income of the deceased and due to his sudden demise, the petitioners have lost their sole bread winner and they were facing financial difficulties. 05. Before the Tribunal, respondent Nos.1 and 3, owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte. 06. Respondent No.2/insurer filed counter resisting the claim of the petitioners and contended that there was neither rashness nor negligence on the part of the driver of the offending lorry and that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto in which the deceased was travelling, and hence, the 2 nd respondent/insurer of the offending lorry is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. It was further contended that the petition is not maintainable due to non-joinder of insurer and insured of the auto in which the deceased was travelling. It was further contended that the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence as on the date of accident and his driving licence was under suspension and hence, the 2 nd respondent/insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. Hence, it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 07. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle i.e. Lorry bearing No.AP02-TC-1215? 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so, to what extent and from which respondent? 3. To what relief?” 08. On behalf of the petitioners, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On behalf of respondent No.2/insurer, the Administrative Officer respondent No.2 company was examined as R.W.1, Record Assistant in Deputy Transport Office was examined as R.W.2 and Exs.B1 and B2 and Ex.X1 were marked. 09. After hearing both parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition by awarding total compensation of Rs.10,80,342/- against respondent Nos.1 to 3, with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 were held jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners. Respondent No.2, being the insurer, was directed to deposit the said amount into the Court at the first instance, within one month from the date of the award, and permitted to recover the same from respondent No.1, owner of the offending vehicle. Out of the compensation awarded, the petitioner No.1, being wife of the deceased, was awarded an amount of Rs.5,80,342/-, including consortium. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3, being children of the deceased, were awarded an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- each. On deposit of the compensation amount, petitioner No.1 was permitted to withdraw Rs.3,80,342/- along with accrued interest and costs and the remaining amount of Rs.2,00,000/- was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were permitted to withdraw half of their respective compensation amounts along with accrued interest and costs, and the remaining amount was directed to be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank for a period of two years. 10. Aggrieved by the said award, the respondent No.2/insurer preferred this appeal contending that the Tribunal erred in directing the 2 nd respondent/ insurer to pay the compensation to the petitioner, though the evidence adduced by the 2 nd respondent/insurer clearly established that as on the date of the accident, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having any driving license much less valid and effective driving license to drive the vehicle, as the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was suspended by the Motor Vehicle Inspector for a period of six months i.e., from 04.04.2016 to 03.10.2016. It is further contended that the respondent No.1/owner of the offending vehicle, despite knowing very well about the suspension of the driving license of respondent No.3, allowed him to drive the offending vehicle and since there is clear violation of the conditions of the policy, the entire liability ought to have been fixed against respondent Nos.1 and 3. The quantum of compensation awarded to the petitioners was also questioned contending that fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.80,000/- per annum without any valid and substantive evidence, is erroneous, that the amounts awarded under different heads are exorbitant and excessive and the rate of interest is also on higher side. The quantum of compensation awarded to the petitioners was also questioned contending that fixing the income of the deceased at Rs.80,000/- per annum without any valid and substantive evidence, is erroneous, that the amounts awarded under different heads are exorbitant and excessive and the rate of interest is also on higher side. It is, therefore, prayed to allow the appeal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioners/respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein has supported the impugned award and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 12. Now the point for consideration is: Whether the order of the Tribunal needs any interference? POINT: 13. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that as on the date of accident, the driving license of the driver of the offending vehicle was suspended and since respondent No.3/driver of the offending vehicle drove the vehicle without possessing valid driving license, there is clear violation of the conditions of the policy and hence, no liability can be fastened on the 2 nd respondent/insurer. 14. However, it is to be noted that in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh & Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 297 and Manuara Khatun and others v. Rajesh Kumar Singh and others , [ (2017) 4 SCC 796 ] , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that even if the insurer successfully proves a breach of policy condition, the insurance company may still be directed to pay compensation to the claimants and then recover the amount from the insured (owner of the offending vehicle) by way of execution proceedings under the principle of ‘pay and recovery’. 15. As can be seen from the impugned award, the Tribunal, having considered the evidence available on record, more particularly, of P.W.2, who is an eye-witness to the accident, has categorically held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 3 rd respondent/driver of the offending vehicle. It can also be seen that Ex.B1-insurance policy, which covers third party risk, was in force as on the date of accident. In view of the  same, the Tribunal has observed that the 2 nd respondent/insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the respondents at first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. In view of the  same, the Tribunal has observed that the 2 nd respondent/insurance company is liable to pay the compensation to the respondents at first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. In the light of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court referred to supra, no deviation can be taken to the said finding of the Tribunal. 16. Coming to the quantum of compensation, according to the petitioners/claimants, the deceased was an expert cultivator and earning Rs.3,00,000/- per annum. However, considering Exs.A6 to A8-revenue records pertaining to the land owned by the deceased and electricity bill, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to fix the monthly income of the deceased as Rs.80,000/- per annum, which in the opinion of this Court is just and proper. As the number of dependant family members is three, the Tribunal has deducted 1/3 rd (Rs.26,666/-) from the income of the deceased towards his personal expenses, which is in accordance with the guidelines laid down in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation , [ 2009 ACJ 1298 ] and thus, needs no interference by this Court. After such deduction, the contribution of the deceased to the family would come to Rs.53,334/- (Rs.80,000 – Rs.26,666/-). By applying the relevant multiplier of ‘13’ applicable to the age of the deceased i.e., 50 years, as recorded in Ex.A2-Inquest Report and Ex.A3-Post Mortem Report, the Tribunal has arrived at Rs.6,93,342/- towards the loss of dependency, which is just and proper and in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma ’s case. 17. It can be seen from the impugned award that the Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each to the petitioners towards loss of consortium. However, as per the decision in National Insurance Company v. Pranay Sethi , [ 2017 ACJ 2700 ] , the reasonable sum that can be granted under the conventional head of loss of consortium is Rs. 40,000/-. Thus, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each awarded to the petitioners under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ requires to be reduced to Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- in total. 18. 40,000/-. Thus, the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- each awarded to the petitioners under the head of ‘loss of consortium’ requires to be reduced to Rs.40,000/- each i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- in total. 18. With regard to other amounts granted by the Tribunal under various heads, i.e., Rs.25,000/- towards ‘funeral expenses’, Rs.12,000/- towards ‘transport charges’ and Rs.50,000/- towards ‘loss of love and affection’, this Court finds that the said amounts are just and reasonable and no interference is warranted therewith. 19. Thus, the amount granted under the head ‘loss of consortium’ alone is reduced by this Court, while the amounts granted under the remaining heads stands confirmed. To sum up, the amounts awarded by the Tribunal and the amounts granted in the present appeal in the light of the computations made above, are as follows: Head Amount granted by the Tribunal Amount now awarded by this Court Loss of Dependency Rs.6,93,342/- Rs.6,93,342/- Loss of consortium Rs.3,00,000/- (Rs.1,00,000/- each) Rs.1,20,000/- (Rs.40,000/- each) Funeral Expenses Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- Transport charges Rs.12,000/- Rs.12,000/- Loss of love & affection Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.10,80,342/- Rs.9,00,342/- 20. Accordingly, this M.A.C.M.A. is partly allowed and the order dated 18.01.2019 passed in O.P.No.238 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge’s Court, Anantapuramu, is hereby modified by reducing the compensation awarded to the respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein/claimants from Rs.10,80,342/- to Rs.9,00,342/-, with proportionate costs and interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the total compensation from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.