~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.664/2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad has come up in appeal challenging insufficiency of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal as well as the failure on the part of the Tribunal in ordering the 3rd respondent to pay the amount of compensation with a permission to recover the amount from the first respondent. 2. It stands proved that the accident had occurred solely due to the rashness and negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent in riding the offending motor vehicle. The 3rd respondent has taken up a contention that the 2nd respondent was not holding a valid driving licence enabling him to ride a motor vehicle as on the date of the accident. The 2nd respondent has failed to produce any valid driving licence. Even though the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of ₹40,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realisation, instead of directing the insurer to pay the amount to the appellant and to recover the same from the first respondent for want of driving licence to the 2nd respondent, the Tribunal has passed the award and directed the first respondent to meet the award.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.U.Balagangadharan and the learned Senior counsel for the 3rd respondent Sri.Mathews Jacob.
4. On a perusal of the impugned award, it has come out that the Tribunal has granted an amount of ₹17,000/- towards pain and suffering, an amount of ₹7,000/- towards loss of amenities and an amount of ₹12,000/- towards medical expenses. Further, an amount of ₹2,000/- has been granted towards loss of income and an amount of ₹2,000/- has been granted on other counts. It seems that the appellant had sustained a lacerated wound scalp on left eye brow, fracture of left maxilla and abrasion of forehead and face. On considering the nature of injuries, it seems that the Tribunal has fixed an amount, which is adequate compensation to the appellant. Therefore, the said aspect does not call for any interference.
5. Regarding the next aspect as to the direction to the 3rd respondent to pay the amount of compensation to the appellant and to permit the 3rd respondent to recover the same from the first respondent, it seems that the finding entered by the Tribunal is erroneous. When there was such a violation of the policy conditions, the Tribunal ought to have passed an order directing the 3rd respondent to pay the amount and then to recover the same from the first respondent. Therefore, a modification to that effect in the impugned order is warranted.
In the result, this appeal is allowed in part by directing the 3rd respondent to pay the amount of compensation with interest as fixed by the Tribunal within two months from today. The 3rd respondent is permitted to recover the same from the first respondent. When computing the interest, the delay of 456 days caused in filing the present appeal has to be deducted from the period.
Sd/-
(B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE) aks/13/06 // True Copy // PA to Judge