JUDGMENT : B.N. Mahapatra, J. - This appeal has been filed u/s 173 of M.V. Act, 1988 against the Judgment dated 28.1.2005 passed by the Learned Addl. District Judge-M.A.C.T., Jeypore (hereinafter called, the 'Tribunal') in M.A.C. No. 69/2004 (M.J.C. Case No. 143/2000 of the District Judge, Jeypore). 2. Learned Counsel for the Appellant and Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company appear today. Despite service of notice no one appears on behalf of Respondent No. 2 the owner of the vehicle. 3. The case of the claimant-Respondent No. 1 was that on dated 4.7.2000 at about 7 A.M. while he was performing his duty as labourer in a tractor and was proceeding from Pokhnaguda to Sargiguda, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor, the tractor was capsized. As a result of said accident the claimant-Respondent No. 1 sustained multiple bleeding injuries and fracture injury on his rib. After such accident he was shifted to Kotpad hospital for treatment and subsequently shifted to Sub-divisional Hospital, Jeypore, for further treatment. He spent ten days for such treatment in the hospital. Soon after the accident, F.I.R. was lodged in Kotpad P.S. and a case was registered vide P.S. Case No. 50/2000 under Sections 279/337/338, I.P.C. and subsequently charge sheet was submitted in G.R. Case No. 50/2000. Since the offending tractor was duly insured with Opposite Party No. 2-New India Assurance Company Ltd., the Petitioner claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the insurer. 4. Counter affidavit was filed before the Learned Tribunal on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle contending inter alia that the alleged accident was never caused due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The claimant-Respondent No. 1 was never engaged as a helper rather he was working as a daily wage labourer. Soon after the accident he took all possible steps for treatment of the claimant-Respondent No. 1 by spending about Rs. 25,000/-. The further case of the owner of the offending vehicle was that since the tractor along with its trolley was duly insured with valid insurance policy and that the driver of the tractor was also possessing valid driving licence at the material time of accident, the Insurance Company would be liable to pay the compensation. 5. The Insurance Company filed its counter denying averments of the Petitioner. 5. The Insurance Company filed its counter denying averments of the Petitioner. It was specifically contended that the claimant was never working as helper in the tractor and he had never sustained injury due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor. The claimant having failed to produce the relevant documents in support of his treatment expenses, he was not entitled to get the claim amount. The further case of the Insurance Company was that as the driver of the tractor did not possess any valid driving licence, the Insurance Company was not liable to indemnify the compensation. 6. On the above pleadings, Learned Tribunal framed the following issues: (1) Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and whether the Petitioner is entitled to compensation? (2) If so, to what extent and from whom ? 7. The claimant-Respondent No. 1 examined himself as P.W. 1. In course of examination he fully corroborated the facts mentioned in his application. During his examination the mark of fracture injury was noticed on his chest. Learned Tribunal came to the further conclusion that although the claimant had not filed any document in support of his treatment expenses to the tune of Rs. 10,000, from the injury report and prescriptions as well as discharge certificate it was crystal dear that he sustained fracture injury on his 3rd rib and he was undergoing treatment at K.G. hospital, Vizag as indoor patient from 4.7.2000 to 10.7.2000. Learned Tribunal further presumed that the claimant must have undergone much physical pain and mental shock due to such injury. According to the Learned Tribunal, since the accident took place in the year 2000, the claim of the claimant that he was getting Rs. 50/- per day was reasonable. A patient with rib fracture was required to take bed rest for about three months and he might not be in a position to undertake hard work for a period of five months. More specifically, a fracture on the rib of a coolie would drastically reduce his income during the period of his treatment. With these findings, the Learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 38,000/- towards physical pain and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards treatment expenses and Rs. 7,000/- towards loss of income during his treatment period. Thus Rs. 55,000/- was awarded towards the total amount of compensation. With these findings, the Learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 38,000/- towards physical pain and mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards treatment expenses and Rs. 7,000/- towards loss of income during his treatment period. Thus Rs. 55,000/- was awarded towards the total amount of compensation. Interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of application i.e. 21.8.2000 was also awarded. Learned Tribunal further held that the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimant since during the period of accident the tractor with trolley was duly insured with the Insurance Company vide policy No. 3155060200062 which was valid up to 19.4.2001 and it was gathered from the seizure list that the driver was possessing valid driving licence bearing No. 986 which was also valid up to 26.6.2020. 8. Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the compensation awarded by the Learned Tribunal is at the higher side. According to him, the Learned Tribunal while awarding compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards treatment expenses it is not justified to award Rs. 38,000/- towards physical pain and mental agony, which appears to be unreasonable. He further submits that right of recovery of the compensation amount that would be paid by the Insurance Company to the claimant from the owner of the offending vehicle on account of not possessing of any valid licence by the driver during the relevant time of accident should be given to the Insurance Company. It is also submitted by the Learned Counsel that the interest should have been allowed from the date of application till the date of filing of the appeal before this Court. 9. Learned Counsel appearing for the claimant-Respondent No. 1 on the other hand submits that Rs. 10,000/- as awarded by the Learned Tribunal towards medical expenses is extremely low considering the treatment undertaken in different hospitals inside and outside the State of Orissa. 10. The claimant examined one witness and filed five documents, i.e., Ext. 1 certified copy of F.I.R. in Kotpad P.S. Case No. 50/2000, Ext. 2 certified copy of charge sheet, Ext. 3 certified copy of seizure list, Ext. 4 certified copy of seizure list and Ext. 5 certified copy of injury report. Neither the Insurance Company nor the owner of the vehicle examined any witness or produced any document. 11. It is not disputed that the claimant-Respondent sustained injuries in a vehicular accident. 2 certified copy of charge sheet, Ext. 3 certified copy of seizure list, Ext. 4 certified copy of seizure list and Ext. 5 certified copy of injury report. Neither the Insurance Company nor the owner of the vehicle examined any witness or produced any document. 11. It is not disputed that the claimant-Respondent sustained injuries in a vehicular accident. The nature of the injuries as per the injury report and prescription as well as the discharge certificate is that the claimant-Respondent No. 1 sustained injury on the 3rd rib and underwent treatment at Kotpad Hospital and Vizag as an indoor patient from 4.7.2000 to 10.7.2000. Before that he had also undergone treatment in the Sub-divisional Hospital, Jeypore. It cannot be denied that patient with rib fracture is required to-take bed rest and he may not be able to undertake hard work for a considerable period. If such a patient is a coolie, a fracture on his rib would drastically reduce his income during the period of his treatment. This aspect must be kept in mind while determining the just compensation u/s 168 of the M.V. Act, 1988. 12. Considering all the above facts, this Court is of the view that the amount of compensation as awarded by the Learned Tribunal appears to be just and proper which needs no interference by this Court. This Court makes it clear that the claimant-Respondent No. 1 is entitled to get the total compensation amount of Rs. 55,000 as awarded by the Learned Tribunal with 6 per cent interest per annum from the date of application till the date of realization. This Court does not find any reason for restricting the period of payment of interest from date of application till the date of presenting the appeal before this Court as contended by the Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company. Since no cross-objection or any independent appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount, I am not inclined to consider the submission of the Learned Counsel for the claimant to enhance the amount of compensation as awarded by the Learned Tribunal towards treatment expenses. 13. Since no cross-objection or any independent appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount, I am not inclined to consider the submission of the Learned Counsel for the claimant to enhance the amount of compensation as awarded by the Learned Tribunal towards treatment expenses. 13. As regards the claim of the Insurance Company for grant of benefit of right of recovery on the ground of not possessing of the valid licence by the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident, Learned Tribunal has categorically held that at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle had valid and effective licence. On this issue, Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant filed a petition before the Learned Tribunal at a later stage to grant it right of recovery. However, before this Court the Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company has also not brought any material to show that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have valid driving licence at the time of accident. 14. In the above circumstances, this Court directs that the Insurance Company shall pay the awarded amount of Rs. 55,000 with interest as indicated above to the claimant within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order. If the Insurance Company is so advised, it may file fresh petition to initiate a proceeding for recovery of the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle that will be paid by it to the claimant on the ground of breach of policy condition. This Court makes it clear that immediately after deposit of the compensation amount along with interest before the Learned Tribunal, the said amount shall be disbursed in favour of the claimant without waiting for finalization of the inter se dispute between the Insurance Company and owner of the offending vehicle. Insurance Company is entitled to get refund of the statutory amount and the compensation amount which have already been deposited in this Court along with interest accrued thereon on production of the receipt showing deposit of awarded amount along with interest as indicated above before the Learned Tribunal. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.