JUDGMENT :

Sudesh Bansal, J.

1. Both appeals, one by Insurance Company No. 1679/2019, and another by claimants No. 3496/2019, have been filed against the judgment and award dated 1-3-2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Alwar (hereafter 'the Tribunal'), therefore, are being decided by this common judgment.

2. On filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereafter 'the Act of 1988') the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 47,99,536/- with interest in favour of the claimants and while exonerating the Insurance Company from liability, following the principle of "pay and recover" it was directed that the Insurance Company first will pay the compensation to claimants and then may recover the same from owner and driver of the vehicle in question. The claim petition was filed in relation to an accident occurred on 3-7-2015 when vehicle in question bearing registration No. HR-74A-3768 was overturned and in that accident, one Mr. Vinit Moyal died. The vehicle in question was in the ownership of respondent Ashraf and was being driven by respondent Mustkim. The vehicle in question was insured with the United India Insurance Company. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that there is breach of conditions of insurance policy as the driver was not having a valid and effective licence and that the vehicle was not having a route permit and fitness certificate on the date of accident; therefore, the Insurance Company was absolved from the liability to indemnify the insured (owner of the vehicle), however, under the principle of "pay and recover" the Insurance Company was directed to pay the compensation to claimants and then to recover the same from the owner and driver of the vehicle.

3. In Appeal (1679/2019) filed by Insurance Company, it has been argued that when the Tribunal itself has held that there is breach of insurance policy then the claim petition ought to have been dismissed against the Insurance Company as a whole and the Tribunal committed an error of law in directing the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to claimants and then to recover from the owner of the vehicle. Counsel for the Insurance Company has raised three points (i) the driver of vehicle was not having a valid and effective licence on the date of accident, (ii) vehicle in question was not having a route permit and fitness certificate on the date of accident, and (iii) the Tribunal has assessed the quantum of compensation on higher side and prayed that impugned judgment be modified suitably.

4. Appeal (3496/2019) has been preferred by claimants for enhancement of compensation. Counsel for claimants has submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality or jurisdictional error in applying the principle of "pay and recover". Since it is clear from the record that the vehicle in question was insured with the Insurance Company, therefore, even if any breach of conditions of insurance policy is found then also considering the beneficial object of the Act of 1988, the Tribunal is justified and well within its jurisdiction in directing the insurer to satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. The right of the insurer, to recover the amount of award from the owner and driver of vehicle has been protected as well. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the same is rather lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably, but in any case, the Insurance Company cannot challenge the quantum of compensation as the same travels beyond defences available to Insurance Company under Section 149(2) of the Act, 1988. Lastly, counsel for the claimants has submitted that in case the appeal filed Insurance Company is dismissed, the claimants would not press their appeal.

5. Heard learned counsel for both parties and perused the material made available on record.

6. This court is firstly examining the appeal filed by Insurance Company. Counsel for the Insurance Company has argued that while decidin