JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.R. Meha for appellant Insurance Co. 2. In present appeal, the appellant Co. has challenged award passed by MAC Tribunal, Ahmedabad (Mirzapur) in MACP No. 1692 of 2007, Exh.46, dated 17.6.2009, whereby, the claims Tribunal has awarded Rs1,77,800/- with 7.5% interest in favour of claimants. 3. The appellant has challenged present award on two grounds; one is that admittedly driver of vehicle was not possessing any licence to drive the vehicle. The driver was holding licence which was valid only upto 11.9.2007 which did not cover date of accident. 4. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta submitted that when driver was not having valid licence on date of accident, the direction issued by claims Tribunal to pay amount of compensation to claimant and then, to recover from owner of vehicle is also contrary to law, relying upon recent order of Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni & Anr. in CC No. 10993/2009, dated 31.8.2009, delivered by Hon'ble Mr.Justice Markenday Katju and Hon'ble Mr.Justice A.K.Ganguli where certain decisions in respect to same principle has been considered and prima facie view has been taken that this question requires a decision of Larger Bench, therefore, it has been referred to Larger Bench and therefore, according to him, this question has been referred to larger bench, whether such direction can be issued by claims Tribunal to pay and recover from owner of vehicle or not ? Therefore, claims Tribunal has committed gross error in passing such direction against Insurance Co. He also relied upon decision of Apex Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swarna Singh and others reported in AIR 2004 SC 1531 . Relevant observations of aforesaid decision are in Para 77, relied by learned advocate Mr. Mehta which are quoted as under : "77. Proviso appended to sub-section (4) of Section 149 is referable only to sub-section (2) of Section 149 of the Act. It is an independent provision and must be read in the context of Section 96(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that the insurer will be entitled to avoid its liability owing to breach of terms of a contract of insurance but it is another thing to say that the vehicle is not insured at all. Furthermore, it is one thing to say that the insurer will be entitled to avoid its liability owing to breach of terms of a contract of insurance but it is another thing to say that the vehicle is not insured at all. If the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted, the same would render the proviso to sub-section (4) as well as sub-section (5) of Section 149 of the Act otiose, nor any effective meaning can be attributed to the liability clause of the insurance company contained in sub- section (1). The decision in Kamla's case (supra) has to be read in the aforementioned context. 4.1 He also raised contention before this Court on quantum that disability is also not proved by claimant to the extent of 28% and amount of compensation which has been awarded is on higher side. Except that, no other contention raised by learned advocate Mr.Mehta before this Court challenging award in question. 5. Brief facts of the case are that on 6.9.2007, at about 11.00 a.m. The claimant was standing at Zundal City Bus Stand at the border of kachha road, obeying traffic rules at that time driver of Motor Cycle No. GJ-18-AD-1731, belonging to opponent No. 2 came at an excessive speed, rashly, negligently in violation of traffic rules and dashed with claimant and due to such impact claimant flung on the road and sustained grievous injuries and she was immediately admitted at Life Care Hospital Chandkheda and then after for further treatment she was admitted at Hospital of Dr.Himanshu Khara as an indoor patient. It is a case of claimant that she was doing activity of tailoring work and getting Rs. 3500/- per month and aged about 50 years at the time when accident occurred and therefore, claim of Rs. 2 lacs was made. So looking to accident as occurred, narrated by claimants not disputed by Insurance Co. The claimant is a third party, therefore, question is to be considered by this Court, whether in case of third party, a statutory liability under Section 147 imposed against Insurance Co., in such circumstances whether claims Tribunal has committed any error in giving direction to Insurance Co. to pay amount of compensation to claimants and then, to recover from owner of vehicle. 6. Learned advocate Mr. to pay amount of compensation to claimants and then, to recover from owner of vehicle. 6. Learned advocate Mr. A.R. Mehta has read over before this Court decision of Apex Court in case of Swarna Singh (supra). However, Para.76 of aforesaid decision is also relevant wherein Apex Court has observed that 'sub-section (5) of Section 149 which imposes a liability on the insurer must also be given its full effect. The insurance company may not be liable to satisfy the decree and, therefore, its liability may be zero but it does mean that it did not have initial liability at all. Thus, if the insurance company is made liable to pay any amount, it can recover the entire amount paid to the third party on behalf of the assured. If this interpretation is not given to the beneficent provisions of the Act having regard to its purport and object, we fail to see a situation where beneficent provisions can be given effect to. Sub-section (7) of Section 149 of the Act, to which pointed attention of the Court has been drawn by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is in negative language may now be noticed. The said provision must be read with sub-section (1) thereof. The right to avoid liability in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 149 is restricted as has been discussed hereinbefore. It is one thing to say that the insurance companies are entitled to raise a defence but it is another thing to say that despite the fact that its defence has been accepted having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has power to direct them to satisfy the decree at the first instance and then direct recovery of the same from the owner. These two matters stand apart and require contextual reading.' Relevant Para.76 of aforesaid decision is quoted as under : "76. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioner may now be noticed. According to the learned counsel, sub-section (4) of Section 149 deals with the situation where the insurer in the policy purports to restrict the insurance of the persons insured thereby by reference to any condition other than those in Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 149 and in that view of the matter no liability is covered for driving of a vehicle without licence or fake licence. The submission ignores the plain and unequivocal expression used in sub-section (2) of Section 149 as well as the proviso appended thereto. With a view to construe a statute the scheme of the Act has to be taken into consideration. For the said purpose the entire Act has to be read as a whole and then chapter by chapter, section by section and word by word. (See Reserve Bank of India etc. v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd. and others, (1987) 1 SCC 424 : AIR 1987 SC 1023 ) Para 33). 7. Therefore, in case of Swarna Singh (supra), the Apex Court has made it clear that in case of third party injury or death, there may be a ground available to Insurance Co. under Section 149(2) of MV Act, but statutory liability must have to be fulfilled by Insurance Co. and then, to recover the same from owner of vehicle. 8. Recently, Apex Court has in case of New India Assurance Co. ltd. v. Kusum & Ors reported in 2009 (10) Scale 592 , has considered aforesaid aspect wherein the Apex Court has observed that 'Whenever, thus, a direction has been issued by the Tribunal, it must be held to have been done in exercise of its inherent power. It would be travesty of justice, if the Insurance Company which is directed to pay the amount and then face immense difficulties in executing a decree.' 8.1 So, the principle which has been examined by Apex Court in recent decision and it has been held that in such cases where third party interest is involved and contention being a statutory defence available to Insurance Co. under Section 149(2), then also claims Tribunal can issue direction against Insurance Co. being a inherent power first to pay the amount of compensation to claimant and then to recover same from owner of vehicle. Relevant observations of aforesaid decision are in Para.7, 8 and 9 are quoted as under : "7. An owner of a vehicle in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act is legally obligated to get the vehicle insured. The rights and liabilities of the parties to the contract of insurance would be governed thereby subject to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. An owner of a vehicle in terms of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act is legally obligated to get the vehicle insured. The rights and liabilities of the parties to the contract of insurance would be governed thereby subject to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. One of the conditions which would make the insurance company liable to reimburse the owner of the vehicle in respect of payment of the amount of compensation in favour of a claimant is that the driver of the vehicle must possess a valid driving licence. The owner has a duty to see that a vehicle is driven by a person having a valid driving licence. The licence of the driver of the said bus was proved to be invalid. The owner did not raise any contention that he has used due diligence in allowing the driver to drive the vehicle. 8. The courts, however, keeping in view the social justice doctrine in mind where for the Act was enacted and in the interest of the claimants had been passing such orders. The High Court has noticed the decision of this Court in Nanjappa (supra), wherein it was held: "8. Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaur case that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondent claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the executing court concerned as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the executing court shall take assistance of the Regional Transport Authority concerned. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the executing court shall take assistance of the Regional Transport Authority concerned. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing court to direct realisation by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. supra). Yet again in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha [ (2008) 12 SCC 385 ] : ( AIR 2008 SC 2218 ), this Court held : "22. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the limited extent and it is directed that the appellant Insurance Company though not liable to pay the amount of compensation, but in the nature of this case it shall satisfy the award and shall have the right to recover the amount deposited by it along with interest from the owner of the vehicle viz. Respondent 8, particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by him nor has he chosen to appear before this Court to contest this appeal. This direction is given in the light of the judgments of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur and Deddappa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. ( AIR 2008 SC 767 )." Again in Dedappa v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [ (2008) 2 SCC 595 ] : ( AIR 2008 SC 767 ), it was held : "26. However, as the appellant hails from the lowest strata of society, we are of the opinion that in a case of this nature, we should, in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, direct Respondent 1 to pay the amount of claim to the appellants herein and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle viz. Respondent 2, particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by him. We direct accordingly. 9. Whenever, thus, a direction has been issued by the Tribunal, it must be held to have been done in exercise of its inherent power. Respondent 2, particularly in view of the fact that no appeal was preferred by him. We direct accordingly. 9. Whenever, thus, a direction has been issued by the Tribunal, it must be held to have been done in exercise of its inherent power. It would be travesty of justice, if the Insurance Company which is directed to pay the amount and then face immense difficulties in executing a decree. 9. This aspect has also been considered by Apex Court in case of Oriental Insurance Co. ltd. v. Zaharulnisha & Ors. reported in 2008 AIR SCW 3251 : ( AIR 2008 SC 2218 ) The view taken by the Apex Court that in respect of liability of insurer, third party risk, statute raises legal fiction that insurer would be deemed to be a judgment-debtor in respect of liability. The liability of insurer insurer can defend action or any of grounds mentioned in Section 149(1). The liability of insurer- violation of provisions of Act may result in absolving insurers. But same may not necessarily hold good in case of third party. The liability of insurer to satisfy decree passed in favour third party is statutory. So, decision which has been relied by learned advocate Mr.Mehta where third party liability has not arisen, then Insurance Co. can be exonerated from liability. Here, it is not the same case, but here there is a statutory liability of Insurance Co. to satisfy award in respect to third party and then to recover said amount from owner of vehicle. Both facts are different and Mr.Mehta has not cited any decision before this Court where in case of third party liability, the Apex Court has considered that no such direction can be issued against Insurance Co. when third party liability is incurred against Insurance Co. 10. Recently, Apex Court has in case of Samundra Devi & Ors. v. Narendra Kaur & Ors. Reported in AIR 2008 SC 3205 , considered aforesaid aspect. Relevant observations are in Para.15 which is quoted as under : "15. It has not been disputed before us that in certain situations while opining that the insurance company would not be liable to reimburse the insured, a direction upon the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation to a third party and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle is permissible. Such a direction has been issued by the High Court. Such a direction has been issued by the High Court. The said directions are not under challenge. Keeping in view the aforementioned principle in mind, the question which arises for our consideration is as to whether it was permissible for the High Court to interfere with the quantum of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal, although no appeal was preferred either by the owner or the driver of the vehicle nor any appeal was preferred by the insurance company." 11. Therefore, according to my opinion, the contention raised by learned advocate Mr.Mehta cannot be accepted in light of observations made by Apex Court in case of Kusum (supra), Zaharulnisha (supra) as well as Swarna Singh (supra). Therefore, this being a case of third party, liability arises which considered to be a statutory liability under Section 147 of the MV Act and it must have to be satisfied by Insurance Co. first and then, to recover from owner of vehicle. Such direction can be given by claims Tribunal having a inherent power and Insurance Co. can straightway recover said amount from owner by filing execution proceedings against owner of vehicle. 12. This contention has been raised before claims Tribunal and claims Tribunal has examined same in detail. Thereafter, claims Tribunal has directed to Insurance Co. to pay the amount of compensation to claimants and recover the same from owner by initiating proceedings before executing Court and Insurance Co. shall not be required to file a suit. Relevant discussion made by claims Tribunal in respect to liability are in Para. 20 to 23, which are quoted as under : "Liability 20. Learned advocate for the claimant has submitted his written argument at Exh.43 and placed reliance on :- [1] 2008 (3) G. L. R. page No. 2744 : ( AIR 2008 SC 1073 ) Premkumari & Ors. v. Prahlad Dev & Ors. "In the cited case it is held as under : "Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (LIX of 1988) - Secs. 149(2)(a)(11). 149(4) & 149(5) - Liability of Insurance Company when driver did not have effective driving licence- Principle in earlier decision that " in case of third party risks, the insurer has to indemnity the amount and to recover the same from the insured " - Principle reiterated. [2] 2003 (2) G. L. R. Page No. 1771 : ( AIR 2003 SC 1292 ) United India Insurance Co. [2] 2003 (2) G. L. R. Page No. 1771 : ( AIR 2003 SC 1292 ) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lehru & Ors. In the cited case it is held as under : "(A) TORT OF NEGLIGENCE - Liability of Insurers Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( LIX of 1988) Sec,149. Insurance Company must pay to the person entitled to the behalf of the decree, notwithstanding that there has been a breach pf the conditions mentioned in Section 149(2)(a)- Proviso to Section 149(4) makes it clear that " the Insurance Company has to pay to third parties but it may recover from the person who was primarily liable to pay ". "(B) TORT OF NEGLIGENCE- Liability of Insurer- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (LIX of 1988) - Section 149(2)(a)(ii) & 149(4)- whether owner has satisfied himself that the driver has a licence, there would be no breach of Section 149(2)(a)(ii)- where licence is subsequently found to be fake, insurance Company would be liable unless it be established that owner was aware about licence being fake and still permitted the driver to driver the vehicle- Held further, even in such & case (owner being aware about licence being fake) Insurance Company would remain liable to third party but it recover the amount from the insured-owner. "(C) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (LIX of 1988) - Section 149(2) Defences that an Insurance Company can take- Defence that there was breach of one of the specified conditions of policy Insurance Company has to, establish that insured was responsible for the breach. "(D) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (LIX of 1988) - Section 168- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Section 35A- Insurance Company raising a question of law that had already been decided earlier - No substance found in appeal- costs of Rs. 20,000/- imposed on the Insurance company. [3] 2004 ACJ ( Vol.I Page No. 1) : ( AIR 2004 SC 1531 ) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Others. 20,000/- imposed on the Insurance company. [3] 2004 ACJ ( Vol.I Page No. 1) : ( AIR 2004 SC 1531 ) National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and Others. In the cited case it is held as under : "Motor Vehicles Act, Section 149 (2)(a)(ii)- Motor insurance - driving licence- Defences available to insurance company- whether insurance company in order to avoid its liability towards insured has to prove that the insured was guilty of negligence and failed to exercise reasonable care in the matter of fulfilling conditions of the policy regarding driving of the vehicle by a duly licensed driver or one who was not disqualified to drive at the relevant time- Held: yes: mere absence, fake or invalid licence or disqualification of the driver for driving, are not in themselves defences available to the insurance company. [4] 2008 (3) G. L. H. 467 : (AIR 2009 (NOC) 9) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rameshbhai Gopalji Lakhani and Ors. In the cited case, driver was not having and not qualified to possess driving licence, and hence it was held that - though insurance company is not liable, is required to pay compensation to claimant (third party) with the right to recover the same from the insured owner of the vehicle. It is held in Para-9 as under : "9. In view of the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court and considering the identical facts which are available in facts of present case and looking to the finding and reasoning given by the claims. Tribunal and also taking into consideration the decision in the case of united India Insurance Co.Ltd., v/s. Lehru and others reported in 2005 GLR 1771 and National Insurance Company Ltd. v/s. Kamla reported in 2002 GLR 916 and Swaran Singh (Supra), according to my opinion, in case of third party, Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant to have the right to recover from the insured because a breach committed by insured gives the right to the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner. Therefore, contentions which are raised by learned advocate Ms. Jani cannot be accepted and same are rejected." 21. As against above, the learned advocate for the insurance company has argued that the accident took place on 6/9/2007 whereas the driving licence is valid for the period from 11/9/2007 to 10/9/2027. Therefore, contentions which are raised by learned advocate Ms. Jani cannot be accepted and same are rejected." 21. As against above, the learned advocate for the insurance company has argued that the accident took place on 6/9/2007 whereas the driving licence is valid for the period from 11/9/2007 to 10/9/2027. Hence, on the date of the accident, the driver did not hold a valid and effective driving licence. It is, therefore, prayed that there is breach of insurance policy and the company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. In support of his arguments, learned advocate for the insurance company has placed reliance on the following decisions. 2008 ACJ 776 : ( AIR 2008 SC 1073 ) Prem Kumari and others v. Prahlad Dev and others, reported in 2008 ACJ 776 : ( AIR 2008 SC 1073 ) In the cited case it is held under : "Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) and 140- Motor insurance- Driving licence- Fake licence- No fault liability- Liability of insurance company-Tribunal held that driver who is brother of owner of offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective licence on the date of accident and exonerated the insurance company from liability. High Court upheld the finding of the Tribunal whether insurance company is liable- Held: no; however claimants need not refund the amount of Rs. 50,000/- paid by insurance company as no fault liability but insurance company permitted to recover this amount from the owner of vehicle by initiating proceedings before the executing court without filing suit: and claimants may recover the rest of the amount from owner and driver of the vehicle". 22. In view of the ratio laid down in the above referred cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "insurance company shall pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and recover the same from the owner by initiating proceedings before the executing court: insurance company shall not be required to file a suit ". Thus, the referred decision is helpful to the opponent company. 23. Learned advocate for the claimant has contended that 9% interest be awarded. Learned advocate for the insurance company has resisted this contention. I have heard both the learned advocates. Thus, the referred decision is helpful to the opponent company. 23. Learned advocate for the claimant has contended that 9% interest be awarded. Learned advocate for the insurance company has resisted this contention. I have heard both the learned advocates. I have given due consideration to the argument advanced by both sides, in my opinion looking to the present bank rate, I amof the opinion that claimant is entitled to get interest on the awarded amount of compensation from the date of the application till satisfaction of the award as per rate of 9% p.a. with proportionate cost. The proof as to the insurance policy of the offending vehicle Motor Cycle No. GJ-18-AD-1731 photo copy is produced at Mark-18/11, covers the date of accident i.e. 6/9/2007 Thus, the opponent No. 3 was the insurer of the vehicle on the day of the accident. in view of the above circumstances the opponents are jointly and/or severally liable to pay compensation to the Applicant. and later on recover it from the owner of the vehicle. No doubt, there are some decisions which have taken the view that even if the insurance company has no liability, yet it must pay and later on recover it from the owner of the vehicle. [See for example National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Yellamma & Another (2008) 7 SCC 526 : ( AIR 2008 SC 3145 ), Samundra Devi v. Narendra Kaur (2008) 9 SCC 100 : ( AIR 2008 SC 3205 ) (vide para 16), Oriental Insurance Co. v. Brij Mohan (2007) 7 SCC 56 : (AIR 2007 SC 19714) (vide para 13), New India Insurance Co. v. Darshan Devi (2008) 7 SCC 416 : (2008 AIR SCW 2035) (vide para 21), etc.]. We have some reservations about the correctness of the aforesaid decisions of this Court. If the insurance company has no liability to pay at all, then, in our opinion, it can not be compelled by order of the Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to pay the compensation amount and later on recover it from the owner of the vehicle. In our view, Article 142 of the Constitution of India does not cover such type of cases. When a person has no liability to pay at all how can it be compelled to pay? In our view, Article 142 of the Constitution of India does not cover such type of cases. When a person has no liability to pay at all how can it be compelled to pay? It may take years for the insurance company to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle, and it is also possible that for some reason the recovery may not be possible at all. Hence, we direct that the papers of this case be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting a larger bench to decide the following questions : "(1) If an Insurance Company can prove that it does not have any liability to pay any amount in law to the claimants under the Motor Vehicles Act or any other enactment, can the Court yet compel it to pay the amount in question giving it liberty to later on recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. (2) Can such a direction be given under Article 142 of the Constitution, and what is the scope of Article 142? Does Article 142 permit the Court to create a liability where there is none? 14.1 In aforesaid order dated 31.8.2009, the question is referred to larger bench where facts are totally different in comparison to facts of present case. Under provisions of MV Act, the Insurance Co. is having two types of liabilities; one is contractual and another is statutory. In case of contractual liability, as discussed in aforesaid order that on date of accident, vehicle was not at all insured, in such circumstances initially itself Insurance Co. is not liable then to direct to pay amount of compensation to claimant and then, to recover from owner of vehicle which was a question considered by Apex Court and on that basis, matter has been referred to larger bench. But in case when Insurance Co. is statutorily liable to third party under Section 147(1) of MV Act read with Section 149(4) and (5) of MV Act, that question is not referred for decision to larger bench. In facts of this case, question which has been considered by this Court is that in respect of third party, Insurance Co. is statutorily liable to pay amount of compensation to third party and then, to recover amount of compensation from owner in case when breach under Section 149(2) of MV Act is established. In facts of this case, question which has been considered by this Court is that in respect of third party, Insurance Co. is statutorily liable to pay amount of compensation to third party and then, to recover amount of compensation from owner in case when breach under Section 149(2) of MV Act is established. Therefore, contention raised by learned advocate Mr.Mehta relying upon aforesaid order which is not applicable to facts of this case. Even otherwise so long larger bench of Apex Court not overruled the decisions of Apex Court, till then decision of Apex Court being a binding decision to High Courts under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. In light of this, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr.Mehta cannot be accepted. 15. In respect to quantum, learned advocate Mr.Mehta has raised contention before this Court that claimants for proving disability has examined Dr.Hiren Maniar Exh.35, who has assessed permanent physical impairment of 10.8% of Rt. Upper limb and 23.6% of Rt. Lower limb taking into consideration of Dr.Kesler's Jurisprudence. Dr. Maniar was cross-examined by learned advocate Mr.Chudgar on behalf of Insurance Co. wherein doctor has admitted that there were no fracture in shoulder and elbow of the patient. It is stated that there was difficulty in the joint because there was slow movement in the right shoulder as usual course. Further it is stated that the fracture of leg of patient was re-connected in proper condition. Therefore, claims Tribunal has considered aforesaid evidence of Dr.Maniar and for considering aforesaid both permanent disability into body as a whole a principle of Dr.Kesler's formula can be used by him and on that basis, claims Tribunal has considered evidence of claimants and then applied opinion in view of Dr.Kesler's Jurisprudence that there is no scope of direct total of both disability. Hence, he considered 28% permanent disability body as a whole, which is incurred to injured. The claimant being a lady, doing tailoring work and aged about 50 years, therefore, Rs. 3000/- income cannot be considered on higher side. The Apex Court has in case of Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. Reported in 2001 (8) SCC 197 : ( AIR 2001 SC 3218 ) considered income of Rs. 3000/- for lady between age of 45 to 50 and therefore, contention raised by learned advocate Mr.Mehta that Rs. The Apex Court has in case of Lata Wadhwa and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. Reported in 2001 (8) SCC 197 : ( AIR 2001 SC 3218 ) considered income of Rs. 3000/- for lady between age of 45 to 50 and therefore, contention raised by learned advocate Mr.Mehta that Rs. 3000/- income is on higher side, cannot be accepted as accident is of 2007 and on that basis, considering 28% permanent disability claimant has lost Rs. 840/- per month and looking to age of 50 years, multiplier of 10 has been applied which cannot be considered to be on higher side, even taking guidance from second schedule read with Section 163 of MV Act. Therefore, Rs. 100,800/- being a future loss of income rightly awarded by claims Tribunal in favour of claimants. Thereafter, medical expenses and medicines amount has been awarded in favour of claimants. Against that, total amount comes to Rs. 1,77,800/-. That Rs. 40,000/- has been awarded under head of medical treatment and medicines. Rs. 15,000/- has been awarded under head of pain, shock and suffering and Rs. 12,000/- for actual loss of income and Rs. 10,000/- for attendant and transportation charges. 16. Therefore, according to my opinion, claims Tribunal has rightly examined matter on basis of evidence of Dr.Maniar and also rightly considered Dr.Kesler's Jurisprudence and future loss has also been rightly worked out considering income of Rs. 3000/- per month and multiplier of 10 has been rightly applied considering age of 50 years, therefore, on merits in respect to quantum, contention raised by learned advocate Mr.Mehta cannot be accepted. Therefore, according to my opinion, claims Tribunal has rightly directed appellant Co. to pay to third party claimant first and then, to recover from owner of vehicle by filing execution proceedings before executing Court. For that, claims Tribunal has inherent power to issue such direction when interest of third party is involved. For that, claims Tribunal has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court. Therefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Mr.Mehta cannot be accepted and same are rejected. Therefore, there is no substance in present appeal. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. 17. As main first appeal is disposed of, no order is required to be made in civil application for stay. Accordingly, civil application for stay is also dismissed. Appeal dismissed.