M.G. Priyadarsini, J.

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-Insurance Company, questioning the order and decree, dated 27.03.2017 made in M.V.O.P. No. 583 of 2014 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SCs/STs (POA) Cases-cum-Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, (for short, the Tribunal).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties have been referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 8,00,000/- against the respondents for the death of one Kaparthy Vinod (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). It is stated that on 14.07.2014, while the deceased, who was engaged as Labourer to plough the fields of respondent No. 1, was proceeding on Tractor bearing No. A.P. 24 UE TR 4771 and when the Tractor reached near AMRP Canal, which is situated in the field of Kinuka Yadaiah at the outskirts of Cherukupally Village, the driver of the Tractor drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, due to which the deceased fell down in the AMRP Canal and the tractor fell on him, as a result, the deceased sustained head injury and died on the spot.

4. After considering the claim and the counter filed by the Insurance Company, appellant herein, and on evaluation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Tribunal has allowed the O.P. and awarded compensation of Rs. 5,91,072/- with interest at 8% per annum, holding that both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

5. Heard both sides and perused the record.

6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company is that the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the Policy by allowing the deceased to travel on the mudguard of the tractor and therefore, the Insurance Company cannot be even fastened with the liability of pay and recovery.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimants submits that the Tribunal passed a well reasoned order which needs no interference. He further submits that though the deceased travelled in the tractor as an unauthorized passenger, the liability of insurance company cannot be exonerated and hence the Tribunal has rightly passed the order, and the same does not need any interference. He further contended that even, for the sake of argument, the liability of insurance company is exonerated the insurance company is still liable to pay the claimants at the first instance and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle, in accordance with the decisions of the Apex Court.

8. There is no dispute with regard to the manner of the accident and the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle in causing the accident. The ground now taken by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that since the owner of the offending vehicle has violated the terms and conditions of the policy, the Tribunal ought to have directed the Insurance Company to first pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

9. As seen from Ex. B.1 policy, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 2 and the policy was in force as on the date of accident. Even as per the evidence on record, the deceased was sitting on the mudguard of the tractor and he comes under the category of unauthorized passenger and his risk is not covered by the policy. In similar circumstances, in the case of Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kr. Singh (2017) 4 SCC 796, [LQ/SC/2017/278] the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the case of gratuitous passengers and held that the claimants are entitled for an order against the insurer to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the said amount from the insured in the same proceedings. Further, in a recent judgment in Anu Bhanvara v. Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Laws (SC) 2019 840, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the similar issue by referring its earlier judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Baljit Kaur 2004 ACJ 428 [LQ/SC/2004/22] and Manuara Khatun (supra) apart from other judgments, invoked the principle of 'pay and recover', in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. In Manuara Khatun (supra), the Apex Court at para No. 16 held as under:-

"16. This question also fell for consideration recently in Manager, National Insurance Company Limited v. Saju P. Paul and another 2013 (2) ALD 95 (SC)), wherein this Court took note of entire previous case law on the subject mentioned above and examined the question in the context of Section 147 of the Act. While allowing the appeal filed by the Insurance Company by reversing the judgment of the High Court, it was held on facts that since the victim was traveling in offending vehicle as "gratuitous passenger" and hence, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable to suffer the liability arising out of accident on the strength of the insurance policy. However, this Court keeping in view of 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"."

10. In view of the above, the order of the Tribunal to the extent of directing the insurance company to pay the compensation amount is liable to be modified considering the principle "pay and recover". Hence, to that extent, the order of the learned Tribunal is set aside. The Insurance Company shall deposit the compensation amount, as awarded by the learned Tribunal, at the first instance and recover the said amount from respondent No. 1 thereafter.

11. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands disposed of. No costs.