Judgment 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 04-03-2008 passed by the Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs.3,17,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Seventeen Thousand only) as against the claim of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only). 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. .3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: .On 11-10-2005, when one Nagamalai was walking on the road, he was hit by Bajaj M-80 Motor-Cycle bearing Registration No.TN-67-E-4159 belonging to the 6th respondent herein driven in a rash and negligent manner. The said Nagamalai sustained injuries in the abdomen, hands, legs and all over the body and he was given first aid in Narikudi Government Hospital and later, he was admitted in Geetha Clinic, Arupukkottai for treatment from 12-10-2005 to 14-10-2005 and again he was admitted in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai for further treatment from 14-10-2005 till his death on 17-10-2005. For the death of the said Nagamalai, the claimants filed the above claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. 4. The claimants contended that their father was an agriculturist and that he was earning about Rs.3,500/-per month and their mother already died and that they lost their father also in the said accident. The fourth respondent/claimant is stated to be a physically handicapped. The appellant contested the claim petition stating that the 6th respondent vehicle was not responsible for the accident and it was only because of negligence of the deceased, the accident occurred. Further, the appellant contended that after the accident, the vehicle was not seized and subjected to Motor Vehicle Inspectors inspection immediately and subsequently, it was subjected to inspection only on 25-10-2005. It was also contended that the driver of the Bajaj-M-80 Motor-Cycle was not having valid driving licence and that there was a delay of 17 days in filing the FIR. 5. The Tribunal after enquiry found that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the motor-cycle and however, it found that there was no valid driving licence for the rider of the vehicle and hence, directed the appellant to pay the compensation Rs.3,17,000/- and recover from the sixth respondent herein. 6. Against the said award only, the present appeal has been preferred. 7. 6. Against the said award only, the present appeal has been preferred. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was a delay in filing the FIR and there was delay in subjecting vehicle to the inspection. The second contention is that when the Tribunal rightly found that there was no valid licence for the rider of the motorcycle, it should not have directed to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover the same from the sixth respondent. He relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court passed in Ishwar Chandra and others -vs-The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and others reported in 2007(1) TN MAC 343(SC), wherein it was held that invalid driving licence is a breach of policy conditions and the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. The same ratio was also given in Sardari and others -vs-Sushil Kumar and others reported in 2008(1) TN MAC 294 (SC). In the above case, the driver did not possess the driving licence and the Honourable Supreme Court held that it was a violation of policy conditions of contract of insurance and insurer cannot be fastened with liability. It was further held that the owner of vehicle has statutory obligation to see that the driver whom he authorised to drive the vehicle holds a valid licence. 8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 5/claimants submitted that the Tribunal rightly directed the appellant to pay the compensation to the claimants and recover it from the owner, otherwise the claimants would suffer if there is any variation of the award and it would affect their rights and it would not be possible for them to get the money from the owner. .9. As seenfrom the award, the accident was proved through Exs.P1, P3 and P4. PW.2, Muthuraj was the eye-witness to the accident. FIR was filed against the rider of the motor-cycle. Ex.P3 is the sketch of the accident spot. It was stated by PW.2 that the accident occurred when the vehicle hit the victim while he was walking on the margin of the road. Hence, based on PW.1 and PW.2 and Exs.P1 to P4, the Tribunal rightly found that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the rider of the Bajaj M-80 Motorcycle and the same has been dealt in detail in paragraph 6 of the award. Hence, based on PW.1 and PW.2 and Exs.P1 to P4, the Tribunal rightly found that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the rider of the Bajaj M-80 Motorcycle and the same has been dealt in detail in paragraph 6 of the award. Therefore, the findings in this regard cannot be disturbed as they are based on the evidence. 10. The Tribunal in paragraph 8 of the award concluded that the rider of the vehicle did not have valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The appellant issued notice to the owner as well as the rider calling upon them to produce a copy of the driving licence and the said notice was marked as Ex.R4. However, the said notice was returned as Unserved. Even Motor-Vehicle Inspection Report Ex.R1 also proved that at the time of accident, the rider did not have licence to drive the vehicle. The owner remained ex-parte throughout the proceedings and the owner and the driver did not produce the driving licence. In spite of notice Ex.R4, the owners and driver they did not produce the licence and therefore the Tribunal drew adverse inference against the owner and the driver and concluded that the driver of the motorcycle did not have valid licence at the time of accident. Based on the judgment in National Insurance Company Ltd, -vs-Govindasamy, Rep. by his wife and guardian reported in T.A.C.781(Mad), the Tribunal rightly awarded the compensation against the sixth respondent herein to be paid by the appellant herein to recover the same from the sixth respondent and the same can not be set aside. 11. QUANTUM: Regarding the quantum, the appellant submitted that the award of Rs.3,17,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Seventeen Thousand only) was high and that the award of Rs.2,64,000/-towards loss of dependency was excessive. It was proved by Ex.P2 that the age of the deceased was 55 years and he was working as an agricultural coolie earning about Rs.3,000/-per month. After deduction of 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, a sum of Rs.24,000/-was taken as his yearly contribution to his family. Based on his age 55 years, the multiplier 11 was applied and a sum of Rs.2,64,000/- was arrived at towards loss of dependency. In any event, the said amount cannot be termed as excessive. After deduction of 1/3rd towards his personal expenses, a sum of Rs.24,000/-was taken as his yearly contribution to his family. Based on his age 55 years, the multiplier 11 was applied and a sum of Rs.2,64,000/- was arrived at towards loss of dependency. In any event, the said amount cannot be termed as excessive. The Honourable Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co Ltd -vs- Kalpana (Smt) and others reported in (2007) 3 SCC 538 held that in the absence of any definite materials about the income of the deceased, the monthly contribution to the family, after deduction for personal expenses, was fixed at Rs.3,000/-. In this case, only Rs.2,000/-was taken as monthly contribution. By considering the above judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month towards family contribution could not be termed as excessive and hence, the same is confirmed. 12. Regarding the loss of love and affection, a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) was awarded by the Tribunal. As already stated, the claimants lost their mother even before the death of their father in the accident. There was no one to look after them. Apart from that, the fourth respondent herein is a physically handicapped. If all these factors are considered, a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) awarded could not be termed on the higher side and therefore, the same is confirmed. Towards Transportation, a sum of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One Thousand only) and Rs.2,000/-(Rupees Two Thousand only) towards funeral expenses awarded by the Tribunal would not be excessive and the same are confirmed. .13. As far as the contention that the amount should not have been ordered to be paid by the Insurance Company and recover the same from the owner, the two judgments referred above, in Sardari and others -vs- Sushil Kumar and others reported in 2008(1) TN MAC 294 (SC) and other judgment in Ishwar Chandra and others -vs- The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd and others reported in 2007(1) TN MAC 343(SC), the Honourable Supreme Court confirmed the order of the High Court directing the insurer to pay the claimants and recover the same by initiating the proceedings against the owner. In another case in National Insurance Company Ltd., -vs- Chella Bharathamma reported in 2004(2)TNMAC 196(SC) pay and recovery was ordered. Ltd and others reported in 2007(1) TN MAC 343(SC), the Honourable Supreme Court confirmed the order of the High Court directing the insurer to pay the claimants and recover the same by initiating the proceedings against the owner. In another case in National Insurance Company Ltd., -vs- Chella Bharathamma reported in 2004(2)TNMAC 196(SC) pay and recovery was ordered. Recently, in United India Insurance Company Ltd., -vs- Suresh K.K and another reported in (2009) 1 SCC (Crl) 457, pay and recovery was ordered. Hence, the award of the tribunal directing the appellant to pay the compensation and recover the same from sixth respondent can not be disturbed. 14. If timely help is not given to the victims/ dependants to come out of the tragedy, it would only add more sorrow and sufferings. Loss of parents and resultant parental care is violation of human right. It is one of the rights that are being infringed by the accident. The love and affection mutually shown by the parents and children can not be valued or described and they are something which could only be felt by them and nobody could give it. Our ancient Tamil literature describes father and mother as first God of every human being. ”TAMIL.” The care taken by the parents and the guidance given by them have no parallels and they cannot be valued in terms of money. Therefore, for the loss of the beloved ones, the victim should be immediately compensated. For the fault/default of the insurer or insured, the poor third party victims/dependants can not be made to suffer infinitely. Having already underwent mental agony, pain and suffering by loosing a member of the family/sustaining injury/injurer in the body, they can not be made to wait endlessly for the compensation which is aimed to CONSOLE, COMFORT AND COMPENSATE the victims. 15. Motor vehicle Act, a beneficial piece of legislation, needs to be amended in such a way the insurance claims are settled as quickly as possible. If there are any dispute with regard to violation of policy conditions and dispute regarding liability, they could be fought out by the insured and insurer. Insurance Companies are to sit in the arm chair of the victims and settle the claims. Therefore, when the Tribunal passes an award, the said award should be directed to be satisfied by the insurance company immediately. Insurance Companies are to sit in the arm chair of the victims and settle the claims. Therefore, when the Tribunal passes an award, the said award should be directed to be satisfied by the insurance company immediately. Later it can be recovered from the owner, depending upon the outcome of further proceedings like appeal. 116. With the above observations, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) Nos.1 of 2008 and 1 of 2009 are also closed.